The latest poll suggests that Americans prefer NO health care reform rather than the health care reform currently being offered:
Thirty-five percent (35%) of American voters say passage of the bill currently working its way through Congress would be better than not passing any health care reform legislation this year. However, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that most voters (54%) say no health care reform passed by Congress this year would be the better option.
This does not mean that most voters are opposed to health care reform. But it does highlight the level of concern about the specific proposals that Congressional Democrats have approved in a series of Committees. To this point, there has been no Republican support for the legislative effort although the Senate Finance Committee is still attempting to seek a bi-partisan solution.
Not surprisingly, there is a huge partisan divide on this issue. Sixty percent (60%) of Democrats say passing the legislation in Congress would be the best course of action. However, 80% of Republicans take the opposite view. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 23% would like the Congressional reform to pass while 66% would rather the legislators take no action.
Now, we can naturally assume that more Republicans would be against this reform than for it, and that more Democrats would be for this reform than against it. The amazing part is the numbers of independents, or those not affiliating with either party, who are against this particular reform: 66% would rather see no reform than what is being offered.
Only 60% of Republicans would prefer no reform. In my book, that’s pretty amazing. Independents are who handed the presidency to Barack Obama. I hope he’s paying attention, here. His rhetorical repetition doesn’t seem to be working. Independents are more against his reform than Republicans. That can’t be good.
To add insult to injury, middle-income voters are the most strongly in favor of taking no action. That has to be a blow to the ego. Mr. President, in case you don’t know what that means for you, let me fill you in: there’s a crack in your image, your true colors are shining through, and the people who are against you are the ones who voted for you.
Obama better be careful with his name-calling, at this point. It’s time that he take the hit that it’s not some fringe or special interest groups that are against this. And, it’s not people against change. It’s not people opposing reform just to oppose him and defeat his policies. People have legitimate concerns about everything they have seen, so far. Attempts to assuage these fears has failed, miserably. We all recognize that there is a problem with the system. We all want reform. We just don’t want the reform we have been offered, so far.
(H/T: Memeorandum)
Comments (11)
I would be surprised if this woman didn’t end up divorced:
It’s undeniable that marriage and relationships in general look nothing like they did 40 years ago. What’s happened? Women’s lib, skyrocketing divorce rates, the death of the nuclear family — and that’s just for starters. The whole game has changed.
Sometimes I think that each generation exhibits a reactionary trend to their predecessors.
I am part of the “divorced parents” era. Although my parents are still married, about 60 percent of all people I meet my age come from broken homes. While this phenomenon didn’t necessarily make us “anti-marriage,” it has certainly made us “marriage cautious” or “marriage disillusioned.”
As a modern woman I know the statistics — if I ever do tie the knot, I know it ain’t gonna be all sunshine and roses. And that’s why I plan to be as sure as I can possibly, possibly be.
Before I exchange any vows, I’ve made a vow to myself: I MUST live with someone before I marry them. I’m not alone in this thinking. About 70 percent of couples are cohabiting before marriage these days, according to research from the University of Denver.
The provocation for the article, which she didn’t get to until the end–after telling the great story about her and her boyfriend living together, but that didn’t work out–was a University of Denver study that found cohabitators, contrary to popular opinion, are more likely to get a divorce rather than less likely. I’ve heard it all before. “We need to live with each other to know if it will really work out.” Unfortunately, that is often a sign that it won’t work out.
I know plenty of people that have lived together before marriage. I’m not going to act like it always ends in divorce, because it doesn’t. But, why increase the odds against you? For someone like me, the odds are already against me. My parents were divorced, which makes me more likely to get divorced. I have often said the next man I live with will be my husband (other than the guy I rented a room from several years ago–which didn’t last long, the only other men I have lived with have been my brothers and my father). Living with men isn’t easy. Why would any woman want to put up with that without the ring?
I wonder if the author ever stopped to think that it was “women’s lib” that caused the skyrocketing divorce rates and death of the nuclear family. I mean, it is undeniable that they played a role. Feminists, especially at that time, were vehemently against housewives. Every woman was supposed to go out, get a career, be independent, and put “me” first. Maybe, just maybe, that contributed to the downfall of the nuclear family and the skyrocketing divorce rates. I’m just sayin’.
I don’t really think the problem with the generations who have been increasingly cohabiting before marriage are not, necessarily, more likely to get a divorce just because they lived together before marriage. It’s what it says about you and your relationship if you feel you have to live with someone before marriage. If you really feel that you need to “test drive the car” before you purchase it, then maybe you don’t really want that car. The need to live together is already a sign of a commitment issue, whether that’s about the relationship itself or just the individuals in the relationship.
A major part of the problem is how we view marriage. We don’t view it as an unbreakable vow made to our spouse and ourselves. We no longer view it as a life long commitment. For too many people getting married has become the equivalent of throwing the dice: who cares if it doesn’t work out? When people get married for the first time it’s seen as just that, the first time. We call it their “starter marriage.”
Our parents, and even more so our grandparents, didn’t have this view of marriage. When things got tough, no one packed up and got going. Marriage is great, but it also sucks. There are going to be bad days, months, and years. That doesn’t matter, though. You’re married. Happiness and unhappiness are part of the territory. Ask your grandparents about it. I’m sure they’ll tell you that there were times they just wanted to kill each other. That they hated each other. That didn’t matter, though. They were married. End of story.
I’m reluctant to get married, too. I used to think I was anti-marriage, and many people still make that assumption about me. I was talking to a friend about it, once, and he said that I’m not against marriage, it’s that I take it so seriously I’m cautious. I guess that’s true. I know when I say my vows that it is for life. I often joke that my husband will have to kill me or himself because he’ll have no other way out. Well, not with no-fault divorce laws in place. I guess he’ll be able to pack up and leave me anytime he wants. That doesn’t mean I won’t still kill him, though.
Side Note: People have said, “what if hes says he’s gay?” Um, that’s not my problem. That would be his. He had an affair? I would kill him; no problem there. He ever hit me. Once again, he would be dead. In fact, most hypotheticals proposed to challenge me on this would result in the man’s death, so there’s no need for me to continue here.
See, I think when you marry someone they become your family. There might be years you can’t stand them, but they’re family and you can’t get rid of family. I have three brothers and a sister. Trust me, there are times when we all want to kill each other. There are times when this one doesn’t talk to that one. The silent treatment can last for years. But, we’re all still family. No matter how much hurt and anger might be there, there is still that love. I can’t just choose not to be their sister anymore. That’s how I view marriage. My husband will be my family and I can’t just choose not to be his wife anymore.
We have idealized marriage and romance. We selfishly only care about our happiness in the moment. We think we should be happy every minute of every day. The minute marriage gets tough or uncomfortable, we split. Too bad if we destroy our children’s lives. We don’t care. It’s all about us. We’re not happy and we have a right to be happy, except we don’t. Marriage is hard work and requires sacrifice. That is not something most people today are willing to do. And, a lot of this is a direct result of “women’s liberation.”
I wouldn’t be in a relationship with a man I couldn’t see marrying. And, if I could see myself marrying him, I don’t need to live with him first. I know that living with someone is the hardest thing you can do. I’ve lived with a couple of friends and I have said that if a friendship can survive living together, it can survive anything.
I know that there are things that you learn about someone when living with them that you wouldn’t learn about them otherwise, but are you really going to learn something that would deter you from marrying them? Are you worried that after you married your boyfriend you’ll have to divorce him because he leaves his dirty boxer shorts on the floor? If so, you shouldn’t be getting married, anyway.
I just think that people are too flippant when it comes to marriage. No one takes it seriously. There is no honor, anymore. The divorce rates just prove that you can’t take people at their word. That overwhelming feeling that consumes you on your wedding day isn’t going to still be there five, ten, or fifteen years later. That doesn’t change, anything, and doesn’t mean you should get a divorce. And, if you really feel you need to live with a person in order to determine whether or not you should marry them, I can save you the trouble. You shouldn’t marry them because either they’re not the one for you or you’re not ready. The sad part is, for too many people, they’ll never be ready.
Comments (1)
Obamacare will lead to rationing and those most likely on to be hit will be the elderly:
Elderly Americans are turning out in droves to fight ObamaCare, and President Obama is arguing back that they have nothing to worry about. Allow us to referee. While claims about euthanasia and “death panels” are over the top, senior fears have exposed a fundamental truth about what Mr. Obama is proposing: Namely, once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, rationing care is inevitable, and those who have lived the longest will find their care the most restricted.
***
Far from being a scare tactic, this is a logical conclusion based on experience and common-sense. Once health care is a “free good” that government pays for, demand will soar and government costs will soar too. When the public finally reaches its taxing limit, something will have to give on the care and spending side. In a word, care will be rationed by politics.
Mr. Obama’s reply is that private insurance companies already ration, by deciding which treatments are covered and which aren’t. However, there’s an ocean of difference between coverage decisions made under millions of voluntary private contracts and rationing via government. An Atlantic Ocean, in fact. Virtually every European government with “universal” health care restricts access in one way or another to control costs, and it isn’t pretty.
The article concludes:
It’s striking that even the AARP—which is run by liberals who favor national health care—has been backing away from support for Mr. Obama’s version. The AARP leadership’s Democratic sympathies will probably prevail in the end, perhaps after some price-control sweeteners are added for prescription drugs. But AARP is out of touch with its own members, who have figured out that their own health and lives are at stake in this debate over ObamaCare. They know that when medical discretion clashes with limited government budgets, medicine loses.
The bottom line is, Obama can argue all he wants about what the bill says and means, but when you look at the implications for what this bill will eventually lead to down the road it is undeniable that care rationing will hurt the elderly more than any other population. When rationing happens, which it inevitably will, someone will have to start making decisions, developing formulas, to decided what care will be allowed and what care will be cut and who is deserving of care and who is not.
If a person is 80 years old, do you really think that they will be treated the same as a 24-year-old? Nope. They will be viewed as someone who has already lived their life and doesn’t have much time left no matter what you do for them. Their care will be rationed, first. That’s just the facts. That may not be the bill’s intent, but it will be the bill’s end result. There is no way to prevent that. And, by the time we reach that point, all of the people who voted for it will probably be dead (most of those pols are pretty effing old!) and the ones living won’t care because they’ll still be clinging to their own health care system.
(H/T: Memeorandum)
Comments (2)
The scary part comes at the end:
Former President Bill Clinton told an audience of liberal online activists Thursday evening that the nation has “entered a new era of progressive politics” that could last for decades if Democrats can pass ambitious measures such as health care reform and climate change.
In a nearly hour-long keynote address to the fourth annual Netroots Nation convention in Pittsburgh, a gathering of roughly 1,500 progressive bloggers and activists, Clinton said the nation—and public opinion—has dramatically changed in the 16 years since he took office. But he noted that President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress needed the support of the online community to achieve their agenda.
“We have entered a new era of progressive politics which, if we do it right, can last 30 or 40 years,” Clinton said. “America has rapidly moved to another place on a lot of these issues.”
I don’t believe that public opinion has changed dramatically since Bill Clinton took office 16 years ago. If anything, I think that most people still tend to lean conservative–even if that’s not the label they use for themselves. As we are seeing from the current grassroots revolt against this administration, this Congress, and their agenda, Americans prefer the government to just leave them alone, which is not a part of the liberal philosophy.
And, don’t be fooled, when Clinton says progressive he means liberal. He just knows that their brand of liberalism isn’t popular, so they’re trying to rename it. But, a rose by any other name is still a rose and a liberal by any other name is still a liberal. Nice try, Bill.
The last line is a warning to all Americans. Clinton is right. If we allow them to move forward with this radical liberal agenda it will have lasting affects for at least the next 30 to 40 years. As it stands right now, we’ll be paying for it much longer than that, anyway. This is just another reason of why we cannot let this happen.
Well, if Obama and Congress need the support of liberal bloggers to achieve their agenda, the rest of America needs our support in order to defeat their agenda. I’m always crunched for time, but I’m willing to take up that charge.
Comments (0)
I’m not going to lie, I’m a little surprised CNN would ever report on this. It goes against the “whites as racists” narrative they have been using since, well, forever:
An African-American man has pleaded guilty after being accused of impersonating a white supremacist in a fictitious Facebook account to make death threats against an African-American university student.
Dyron L. Hart, 20, of Poplarville, Mississippi, pleaded guilty Wednesday before U.S. District Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt to one count of communicating threats in interstate commerce, according to a Department of Justice statement.
Hart admitted creating the fictitious account in November, pretending to be a white supremacist outraged by the election of Barack Obama as the nation’s first African-American president, the statement said.
He then transmitted a death threat via Facebook to an African-American student at Nicholls State University in Louisiana, saying he wanted to kill African-Americans because of Obama’s election, according to the statement.
A court document provided by the U.S. attorney’s office said Hart told an FBI interviewer that he intended the threat to be a prank “to get a reaction.”
Why anyone would want to provoke racial tensions like this is beyond me. What, was this guy mad that all of the garbage the MSM, Hollywood, and elite politicians had been telling him all of his life about white America was wrong? Was he angry that the myth of an inherently racist country had been proven to be just a myth with the election of a black man to the White House? Was he out to prove that America was still a racist nation? Since we’re calling him an “African-American,” does he even have any ties to Africa? News Alert: not all blacks are from Africa or descendants of Africans. Talk about a politically incorrect term!
He claims it was a prank, but what kind of prank is that? First of all, it’s not like he was pranking somebody he knew. There was no inside joke here (not that this would be funny even if it were an inside joke). You usually don’t prank strangers and hope not to get caught. I mean, one can only assume he didn’t intend to get caught. I wonder if Barack Obama would say that this man “acted stupidly” if he were questioned about it. Probably not, but if he did he could invite him over for a beer, afterward! There’s two people that need to get together: the “prankster” and the guy he pranked.
Let’s be realistic, the left would just excuse this guys behavior. Somewhere in there it’s the white man’s fault. I’m just not seeing it, yet. It must be all of those years of racism and oppression. Whatever! I’m still waiting to see this post-racial America we’re supposed to be living in. I never had to get past race because I was never behind it. I wish everyone else would catch up.
Comments (7)
The Times, unintentionally I’m sure, highlights one of the reasons why all estimates on the cost of health care are unrealistic:
They came for new teeth mostly, but also for blood pressure checks, mammograms, immunizations and health news about acupuncture.
For the second day in a row, thousands of people lined up on Wednesday — starting after midnight and snaking into the early hours — for free dental, medical and vision services, courtesy of a nonprofit group that more typically provides mobile health care for the rural poor.
Like a giant MASH unit, the floor of the Forum, the arena where Madonna once played four sold-out shows, housed aisle upon aisle of dental chairs, where drilling, cleaning and extracting took place in the open. A few cushions were duct-taped to a folding table in a coat closet, an examining room where Dr. Eugene Taw, a volunteer, saw patients.
When Remote Area Medical, the Tennessee-based organization running the event, decided to try its hand at large urban medical services, its principals thought Los Angeles would be a good place to start. But they were far from prepared for the outpouring of need. Set up for eight days of care, the group was already overwhelmed on the first day after allowing 1,500 people through the door, nearly 500 of whom had still not been served by day’s end and had to return in the wee hours Wednesday morning.
Although the gist of the article seems to an advocation of why we need the government to supply health care, in reality it’s a vindication of why the government shouldn’t get involved and how cost predictions are meaningless.
The sob story being told is supposed to be representative of those who don’t have health insurance or who have inadequate coverage. It is supposed to evoke our sympathies and guilt us into supporting a government-run health care system. In actuality, for me at least, it just heightened my concerns about the cost, rationing, and declining quality of care that will result from a government-run system and the infeasibility of such a plan.
Let’s take one more look at the most important sentence in the whole piece:
But they were far from prepared for the outpouring of need. Set up for eight days of care, the group was already overwhelmed on the first day (emphasis added) after allowing 1,500 people through the door, nearly 500 of whom had still not been served by day’s end and had to return in the wee hours Wednesday morning.
This is exactly what will happen with government-run health care. Cost estimates are based on current usage of health care. When health care is free, people will be coming out of the woodwork for care, and they’ll be more likely to go to the doctor’s office for minor illnesses and injuries that don’t necessarily require a doctor’s visit. The inflated demand will lead to longer wait times for everybody, including those with diseases that require immediate care.
The only way to prevent all of this would be to restrict or…ration health care. As the costs of the program become unsustainable, taxes will have to go up and/or the rationing and restricting will become more strict. And, where will rationing, restrictions, and longer wait times lead us? Inevitably, it will lead to people dying. What will call the bureaucratic groups responsible for making these decisions? I’m assuming not “Death Panels,” even though their rationing and restrictions will inevitably lead to people dying. But, what’s a few eggs when you’re trying to make an omelet?
(H/T: Memeordandum)
Comments (1)
Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, posted this on the White House blog, yesterday:
This afternoon I’ll deliver a speech at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs focused on how the Obama Administration is charting a new course in the world, and taking a whole new approach at the United Nations.
I have to confess, it’s a great moment to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Everyone notices when a superpower becomes an agent of change—in word and deed, in policy and tone. We are demonstrating that the United States is willing to listen, respect differences, and consider new ideas. Even more importantly, we are advancing our interests and making Americans safer.
Today, as we steer a new course at the United Nations, our guiding principles are clear: We value the UN as a vehicle for advancing U.S. policies and universal rights. We work for change from within rather than criticizing from the sidelines. We stand strong in defense of America’s interests and values, but we don’t dissent just to be contrary. We listen to states great and small. We build coalitions. We meet our responsibilities. We pay our bills. We push for real reform. And we remember that, in an interconnected world, what’s good for others is often good for America as well.
I’m not quite sure what the change is. I mean, we have always been willing to listen, respect differences, and consider new ideas. President Bush may have discounted those ideas, in the end, but he listened, respected, and considered.
I wonder whose interests she is talking about advancing. When she says “our interests,” I have this sneaking suspicion she is talking about the interests of President Barack Hussein Obama, “citizen of the world,” Appologizer-in-Chief. His interests and my interests are quite different, from what I can tell. His interests are not making America safe, in my opinion. And, it’s not in America’s interest to become chummy with the UN.
What UN is she talking about? Since when has the UN been a vehicle for advancing US policies and universal rights? The policies the UN typically advances violate American sovereignty and peoples’ God given rights, as spelled out in our Constitution. I don’t know what she’s talking about. Does she?
America has always tried to work with the UN and bring change from within. Unfortunately, the whole organization is stacked with countries that despise us. There’s only so much you can do working from within. At some point, to truly protect America’s interests, you have to break free from this wholly anti-American organization. And, I can’t recall when we dissented just to be contrary. Under the Bush administration we often dissented because what ever was on the table was contrary to American ideals and principles. Get your facts straight, sweetheart.
We pay our bills? That’s laughable! We push for real reform? Blah, blah, blah. And, about that last part, can you remind the rest of the world that what is good for America is often good for them? You know, like us fighting terrorism benefits them, as well. Maybe they’ll kick some troops in. I doubt it, though.
When are liberals going to grow up and move past their naive, idealistic view of the world. The United Nations is not our friend. Unlike America, other countries are only out for themselves. Everyone knows that without America–the sole superpower, not one among many as is suggested in the little blog post–this world would be a much crappier place. We take the risks and fight the fights no one else is willing to. Time and again, we are hated for saving their butts. But, we are America. We see this as our burden and our responsibility and gladly do it (ok, maybe “gladly do it” isn’t the right term. I’m not too happy about it.). What do we get in return? Nothing but hate.
The UN is garbage. It’s a world organization out for world governance and the take down of America. It is not our friend, but our enemy. We should stay involved and keep it close, because as the old saying goes, “keep your friends close; keep your enemies closer.” Other than that, our involvement with them should be limited.
The UN has proven time and again they do not have America’s interests at heart. The only interest they have in America is taking her down as the sole superpower. They don’t want to be our friends, sitting around the camp fire singing Kumbaya. And, if this is what you think of the UN, perhaps you shouldn’t be our ambassador to them.
Comments (0)
Suppose less government intervention is what the health care industry needs:
Because the tax code subsidizes private insurance only when it is sponsored by an employer, the individual market is relatively small and its turnover rate is very high. Most policyholders are enrolled for fewer than 24 months as they move between jobs, making it difficult for insurers to maintain large risk pools to spread costs.
Mr. Obama wants to wave away this reality with new regulations that prohibit “discrimination against the sick”—specifically, by forcing insurers to cover anyone at any time and at nearly uniform rates. But if insurers are forced to sell coverage to everyone at any time, many people will buy insurance only when they need medical care. This raises the cost of insurance for everyone else, in particular those who are responsible enough to buy insurance before they need it; they end up paying even higher premiums. And the more expensive the insurance, the less likely people will buy it before they need it.
That’s one reason that only five states—Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Vermont—have Mr. Obama’s proposal for “guaranteed issue” on the books today. New Hampshire and Kentucky repealed such laws after finding that they soon had an even smaller individual insurance market as companies fled the state.
Another proposed reform known as “community rating” imposes uniform premiums regardless of health condition. This also blows up the individual insurance market, by making it far more expensive for young, healthy or low-risk consumers to join pools—if they join at all. And if the healthy don’t join risk pools, then premiums go up for everyone and insurers have little choice but to reduce their risk by refusing to cover those who have a high chance of getting sick, such as people with a history of cancer. This is why 35 states today impose no limits whatsoever on how much insurers can vary premiums and six states allow wide variation among consumers.
New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have both community rating and guaranteed issue. And, no surprise, they have the three most expensive individual insurance markets among all 50 states, with premiums roughly two to three times higher than the rest of the country. In 2007, the average annual premium in New Jersey was $5,326 for singles and in New York $12,254 for a family, versus the national average of $2,613 and $5,799, respectively. ObamaCare would impose New York-type rates nationwide.
I stronly urge you to read the whole article. It just may give you something to think about. The current health care situation, with all of its faults, is a direct result of misguided government intervention and its unintended consequences.
As the article sums it up:
ObamaCare would impose on all 50 states rules that have already proven to be failures in numerous states. Because these mandates would raise the cost of insurance, ObamaCare would then turn around and subsidize individuals to buy the insurance that the politicians made more expensive. Only in government could such irrationality be sold as “reform.”
Only in America could the people expect a problem created by government intervention to be solved by more, rather than less, government intervention. Every medical program that is government run is going bankrupt, yet people want to hand over all medical care to the government. Only in America.
(H/T: Memeorandum)
Comments (0)
I’m starting to wonder if Obama even knows what the truth is:
President Barack Obama took direct aim at the vocal opponents who’ve been filling congressional town halls on health care Tuesday, saying despite all the “yelling and the shouting and the noise,” health reform will improve the lives of Americans with and without insurance now.
Obama said special interests who oppose health reform always “try to scare the heck out of folks, and they’ll create boogeymen out there that just aren’t real” to prevent change. He even sought to rebut directly one of the most widespread rumors — that the bills in Congress include so-called death panels to decide how much coverage people can receive.
Obama said critics charge that the government will “basically pull the plug on Grandma, because we’ve decided it’s too expensive to let her live anymore” — and denied there is any such thing in the bills.
“Where we disagree, let’s disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to what’s been proposed,” Obama said.
Perhaps health insurance reform will improve the lives of all Americans, those with and without insurance. I don’t disagree with that and I’m not against reform. I just happen to disagree that this particular health care reform being offered is going to improve the lives of all Americans, those with and without insurance. I can repeat this truth as much as The One can repeat his lie that opponents are against reform and change all together. That is not the case. I am just against his kind of reform and change.
Once again, I find it amazing that the Fearmonger-in-Chief is referencing special interests as if they are the only ones opposed to his proposed reform and that he claims they are the ones using fear to achieve their goals. Who is the one who claims that every bill he supports has to be passed and has to be passed immediately or the whole world is going to end? Who is the one out there claiming that if we don’t pass this specific health care proposal, and pass it now, people out there are all going to get sick and die? That would be Obama. Is that not using fear to force change?
We all admit that the bill does not include “so-called death panels.” But, lets follow this to its logical end. at some point there will be a rationing of health care. Obama has already expressed how older people should waste money and resources just to extend their lives by six months. They should just take a pill. Who will make the decision that a person’s life isn’t worth it? Who will make the decision that someone is too old to receive a pacemaker or a new hip? As Obama said, maybe they should just take a pill. Who will make that decision? Eventually, it will be some bureaucrat. Call it by whatever euphamism you want, but there will be bureaucrats deciding standards and regulations of care and some of those decisions will cost lives.
This is what people don’t get: bills and laws are passed incrementally. What is proposed today, as horrendous as it is, is just the foundation. If this bill passes, it might not be socialism instantly in America, but this will just be another building block for it to come later. It is happening slowly and incrementally. It is foolish and naive to think otherwise.
Lastly, all of these arguments are moot, as far as I am concerned. As I work on my thesis, I havebeen spending a lot of time studying constitutional law. Here’s my question for Congress, Obama, and all of the Americans who support this: Where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the authority to implement a national public health care system? Where, in our founding document that all other freedoms, restraints, and rights are written out, does it give Washington the power to stael from me to fund health care for you? If you can just tell me that, then we can start to discuss the specifics of the actual bill.
Since there is not constitutional authority granted to the federal government to do anything that is proposed in this bill, the rest of the arguments don’t really matter. It does matter if they plan on killing grandma or not. It doesn’t matter if they want to use federal funding to finance abortions. It doesn’t matter if they want to outlaw private insurance. All of these disputes are irrelevant as long as this bill is unconstitutional, which it most certainly is.
Obama was a constitutional law professor. If he wants to concetrate on disagreeing over what is real, let’s do that. What is real is that this bill is unconstitutional. Period. So, Mr. Constitutional Law Professor, let’s discuss that very real fact. Please, tell me where in the Constitution our founding fathers granted you the authority to trample our rights in order to impose this absurd health care reform on us? If you can get over that hurdle, we can move on to the other issues I mentioned above.
Comments (2)
Sen. Arlen Specter greeted by hostile crowd in Pennsylvania:
A hostile crowd shouted questions and made angry statements Tuesday at a town hall meeting on health care in Pennsylvania led by Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter.
The meeting drew an overflow of about 250 people, with more gathered outside the hall to demonstrate for and against President Obama’s push to expand health insurance for 46 million people without coverage while bringing down costs.
It was the latest in a series of emotional public meetings on the health care issue that have prompted Obama and Democratic leaders to complain of a campaign by opponents to drown out the debate with unruly disruptions.
This story really isn’t newsworthy on its own. I mean, at this point, we’re all getting used to the news of the American revolt against government run health care. I’m not going to say it’s the first time in my life that I’m proud of my country (because I have always been proud of my country), but it’s one of the proudest moments in recent times.
I watched a little bit of Obama’s town hall meeting, until the point I realized I needed to calm down and walk away. That much stress can kill a person, you know? It stayed on the work TV in the background, so I heard most of it. Here is what I find amazing. Story after story has been reporting about these angry mobs and protesters showing up at town hall meetings. You know those corporate shills being bussed in to oppose reform? Blah, blah, blah.
Here’s the problem. How is it Obama’s town hall meeting, which supposedly wasn’t staged in any way, lacked any of these angry mobsters? How come every time I peaked at the screen it was just a crowd of smiling faces and wild applause? Does this not strike anyone else as odd?
There are two problems with this. If, like the Democrats claim, these protests are fake and pre-arranged, how come no one planned to infiltrate the most important and widely covered town hall meeting featuring the one and only President Barack Obama? I mean, if these “un-patriotic” Americans are as organized and controlled as teh Dems claim they are, why didn’t they secure some tickets to the event?
And, are we, the American people, to be convinced that a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, the “live free or die” state, only attracted those who approve of a huge expansion of government into our private lives and doctor’s offices? Are we to be convinced that a state well known for its libertarian leanings could only produce people who support government intervention into their medical decisions?
I get that people are in love with Barack Obama, even if I don’t get why. But how much must his supporters and defenders kid themselves in order to remain blinded to his staged existence? This blind faith in Obama is unhealthy for the Americans who have it and our country as a whole.
Comments (10)
« Newer Posts —
Older Posts »
