If the recent Health Care Summit accomplished anything, it was to demonstrate two facts: Republicans have their own ideas, and these ideas are fundamentally different from those of the Democrats. After having spent months talking up the notion that no right-wing alternatives exist on health care, Democrats seemed genuinely surprised to find their rivals armed with counter-proposals, and their claim that they had already integrated Republican solutions into their legislation rang hollow.
On some aspects of health care, such as cost control, Republicans and Democrats share common ground, and in this area it may be possible for a smaller, more moderate bill to pass. But on many other points, such as finding the best way to expand insurance coverage, the two sides disagree on the nature of the problem itself. Call it a tragedy if you must, but sometimes two sides hold such different views that no useful compromise is possible. The art of good politics is to avoid warring over intractable differences of opinion and focus instead on what can be done– if the legislature wastes its time fruitlessly seeking resolution on issues for which there can be no consensus, it will miss out on countless other opportunities to make improvements that both sides believe are necessary.
The Democrats’ new-found love of competition should be applied to education reform
As the national health care debate again rears its ugly head (so much for focusing on the economy), Democrats have begun murmuring that now is the time to put the so-called “public option” back on the table. To hear liberals talk about it, the public option is the heart of health care reform and there can be no improvement in health insurance markets without it. They reason that health insurance markets will be improved by the competitive pressures that the public option will provide, and even when told by the Congressional Budget Office and several of their own health care experts that health insurance markets are already largely competitive and that a public option would have minimal impact, they still clamor for it. They must love free-market competition just that much.
Many GOP’ers are identifying themselves with Brown, a socially moderate Republican, hoping his good luck will rub off onto them. Anyone following the MA race was most likely shocked and energized when Brown won the seat to replace the late Ted Kennedy (D-Mass). Brown won by running on the healthcare issue, stating that he would be the 41st vote, a “no” vote to kill the bill. And as exciting as that is, it’s important to note that he is not totally against the idea of a government run healthcare program.
This week the bitter Senate debates started over the Obama/Reid/Pelosi health care program. Democrats call it a historic opportunity to insure millions of Americans who are uninsured, while Republicans see this as a government take over and a move towards a European flavored socialism.
The first attempt by a Republican amendment to stave off Medicare cuts and approved safeguards for coverage of mammograms and other preventive tests for women was rejected (voted 58-42 ) by the Democrat controlled Senate on Thursday. Any amendments will require 60 votes to pass, so this bill will be a true test to the unity and cohesiveness of the Democratic Party.
“I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” This phrase is more applicable now than ever. For months now Americans have been telling and often shouting what they want and don’t want to their elected representatives with little results. House and Senate Democrats have continued to tell the American public that they know what is best for Americans, regardless how many of us picket their local offices or Tea Party Washington. Bottom line is they don’t want to listen. This healthscare bill is not about helping Americans. It’s about power. If the Democrat’s can get the American public hooked on Healthcare and other social dependency programs, then they feel that they will be able to remain in power indefinably because if people are dependent on the government for life they will vote for the Democratic party. This Democratic controlled 111th Congress and the Obama administration have shown us time and time again with their words and actions over the last year that they see American sovereignty as something that is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, economic status and the well-being of the state. This is statism through and through, and it’s time that the rest of America wakes up from its brainwashed utopia.
I almost couldn’t believe my ears and eyes when watching Congressman Rogers made his opening statement on Health Care reform legislation that is under debate in Congress. Such logic and common sense.
The fuzzy feel good ideologies of the Human Rights movement play on the human conscience and to us feel… warm and fuzzy. No one should go hungry, no one should go without shelter, no one should have to work for minimum wage (a different topic altogether, damn Keynsians), but most of all no one should have to pay for health care. Pay for health care?! How dare you even suggest such a thing. Top notch health care should be provided to everyone free of charge has been the rally cry of many staunch Progressives. Such calls play on the most basic human emotions and have their base in possibly the most impossible calls of the entire Progressive movement, namely equality. In calling for equality Progressives get themselves into a quandary, How is it equal to force one person to pay top dollar for something while giving the same thing to another for free? How is fair to take money from someone that has earned that money and giving it to someone that has done nothing (which is what government supported health care requires)? I want someone to explain that to me. Doesn’t equal mean that everyone has the same standards applied to them? Doesn’t fair mean that you get to keep the benefits of your hard work? Another thing that I find interesting is that the proponents of such reforms are the last to offer real help, the people that say the tax increase is worth it; are the last ones to cut a check (Obama himself until recently only gave close to 1% of his annual income). Michelle Obama in fact made huge sums of money working a an administrator at a hospital in Chicago, if she really cared about affordable health care wouldn’t she have voluntarily cut her income so that the money could have been used elsewhere? Looking at the Obama’s income tax returns it is easy to see what they really care about… themselves. But I regress.
What is a right? Well lets look at some “rights” that have been accepted since the founding of our country. Our founding documents point out several rights that the founders believed where endowed by the creator in all people. There are several qualities that differentiate a right from what the founders called “pursuit of happiness”.
First and foremost a right is inherently found in every individual. Upon birth we have the ability to express our selves any way that we feel inclined, though we may not have the physical ability to do so, the freedom to do so is there. The right to bear arms is the same way, all of us are born with the right, the permission, to bear arms. Both of these rights can be taken away, should we show that we are not using them properly. Dan Rather is a perfect example. During the second campaign of George Bush he ran a story about the President’s history with the national guard. Though he was warned the the facts where not checking out and that the story seemed, and would later prove to be, bogus; he ran the story anyway. As a result his ability to express himself the way he wanted was severely limited. He went from an unrestricted seat on the evening news to a relatively meaningless slot on the weekend desk. He eventually left CBS and is now suing his former employer.
Secondly the right can require nothing from anyone else except that they do not infringe upon the realization of that right in others. The 1st and 2nd Amendments to the Constitution are again perfect examples. Even while I write this I am exercising rights guaranteed to me by the 1st Amendment. I have the freedom to write what I want. I can in fact even write and publish things that are slanderous and outright lies and no one could stop me, though I could be held liable if my words where found to have damaged someone and where also slanderous. The Second Amendment is the same way. Nothing is required of anyone else except that they respect my right to own a firearm. The right to keep and bear arms does not require someone to give me a firearm, nor does it require someone else to instruct me in the proper use of that firearm. But again misuse of this right will result in the removal of the right. Because of the permanency of actions with a firearm the consequences for misuse are comparatively severe.
For most it would be easy to see how the “right to health care” does not fit either of these qualifications. When we are born we do not inherently have health care, if we where left to sit upon entry into this world we would inevitably perish. In less prosperous parts of the world the elderly do not receive the care that they do here and as a result many parish do to lack of medical care. Health care is not something that we are born with it is something that we are given as a result of the conditions that we are born to, or the status that we attain. But some would argue that being human should guarantee a level of care, that people have the “right” to live a healthy life. What is wrong with that idea? My only argument is the classification of health care as a right. As members of the great human race we have a responsibility to help those that are less fortunate than ourselves a basic desire that becomes very apparent when looking at the amount of volunteer time and money that goes into the health care system. But having a desire for people to live a healthy life does not make it a right.
Where does health care come from? Do you care for yourself? Do you purchase health care and are then able to apply it as you see fit with no interference of help from an outside source? No, health care by nature requires the action of someone else. The list of people and resources that are tasked to health care is astounding. A simple doctors visit requires the assistance of several people, many of whom are highly skilled professionals. The appointment need to be scheduled, records have to be made, assessments need to be done on the patient, a doctor will conduct the appointment and a follow up appointment or referral will be made. All of this done in a facility specially built for the purpose of patient care most likely at a great cost. All of this requires the action of someone else for you to get health care and violates the core definition of a “right”.
Health care is not a right. Health care is a warm fuzzy, that we would like people to have, that we even volunteer so that more people can have but ultimately cannot be classified as a right. To force a doctor to see a patient, regardless of the compensation they may receive, is a clear violation of property rights. The Progressive movement is really old school communism, lets just call it what it is. They say “progressive” but what they mean is a society where everything is managed and planned by the government, everything from health care to auto manufacturing to energy, things that have become the commanding heights of the 21st century. The progressive movement is communism, it seeks to undermine the Constitution of the US by saying things like “health care monopoly” and “health care is a basic human right” here is what progressives think about our rights… (see you tube video on right)
(she doesn’t drop the bomb that free speech should only be for the educated, even though she only went to three semesters of college.)
By perverting the definition of what a right is they are making it easier to eliminate the rights that are harmful to their cause. It is important to know what rights are guaranteed us by the constitution as well as what a right is. By being educated on the important issues of the time that we live in we will ensure that those rights are protected, because we will know when those rights are being violated.
I wonder if Franklin has even read the bill. Because what he is telling these people is something completely different than what is actually written in the bill. There were a lot of other questions that should have been asked, but at least Franklin took the time to talk to these people and provide his point of view (wrong or not).
Reported September 1, on World Net Daily: the Pandemic Response Bill 2028 is currently making its way through the Massachusetts state legislature that would allow authorities to forcefully quarantine citizens in the event of a health emergency, compel health providers to vaccinate citizens, authorize forceful entry into private dwellings, and give law enforcement officials the ability to arrest without warrant citizens for noncompliance of quarantine orders. The Bill is so disturbing it’s hard to know where to start!
One of my biggest concerns, as it is with HR 3200, is the idea of mandatory vaccination. The Massachusetts bill allows for “whenever the commissioner or a public-health authority decides it is necessary to prevent a serious danger to the public health, they are authorized: to vaccinate or provide precautionary prophylaxis (preventative procedure) to individuals as protection against communicable disease and to prevent the spread of communicable or possible communicable disease, provided that any vaccine to be administered must not be such as is reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual.” But who is responsible for determining what vaccines won’t lead to “serious harm”. Most vaccines come with an array of possible side effects, including severely devastating side-effects, especially Flu and Swine Flu vaccines-as this bill seems to be in response to the H1N1 virus. During the Swine Flu scare of the 1970s, millions of Americans were given the Swine Flu vaccine and an increase in Guillian-Barre syndrome was the outcome. Guillan-Barre is a disorder that affects the peripheral nervous system and can lead to permanent paralysis and even death. While the new vaccine is different, doctors are being asked to report cases of Guillan-Barre. But are they being asked to warn patients of this risk, no matter how unlikely it may be? Maybe you’re thinking, as long as the CDC and FDA endorse it there should be no problems, right? Let’s look at the Guardasil vaccine, given to young women to vaccinate against the human papilloma virus, as an example. Even though it is backed by the CDC and FDA, Guardasil has been linked with over 1,900 reactions, 39 deaths, and 3 cases of Guillan-Barre and even lists Guillan-Barre as a possible side effect in one of their television commercials. So what won’t the health officials be telling you when they’re forcing vaccines on you and your family during one of these “pandemics”? You are the one who has the right to weigh the risks of a vaccine versus the possibility that it may protect you! Not the government! Well, you’ll just refuse the vaccine right? Think again! Instead “An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccination or treatment shall not be required to submit to such procedures but may be isolated or quarantined… for as long as may be reasonably necessary.” Forget about ignoring that quarantine order, because if you do: “Law enforcement authorities are authorized to arrest without warrant any person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has violated an order for isolation or quarantine and shall use reasonable diligence to enforce such order.”
This Bill is yet another example of government over-stepping its bounds and taking away our freedoms as United States citizens. Be assured that you will be seeing scare-tactic methods employed from the government to try and push the N1H1 vaccine on the population. Now, I’m not a doctor, nor do I pretend to be one (unlike some liberals) so I am not arguing that no one should get any vaccine, ever. What I am advocating for is the continued right to be able to make those informed decisions about personal health and safety.
PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE (Page 50, Section 152) – This is one part of the massive bill that I found very interesting, it’s been discussed in the media before but I wanted to bring it up again because it’s a huge problem within the bill. Basically what this section is stating is that American Healthcare will be provided to everyone regardless of race or other characteristics. President Obama and his supporters continue to state that illegal aliens will not be covered in this bill but they have conveniently left a major loophole in the bill to appease their Hispanic support groups. Since there is currently no system for verification, ALL non-US citizens, illegal aliens (undocumented immigrants as the Democrats like to call them) or otherwise will be covered at the U.S. Tax payers’ expense. Hospitals today do not turn away the ill (even if they are an illegal alien), which is one reason why we are in this mess in the first place. Today about 12 million illegal aliens cost the healthcare industry billions in tax payer dollars annually, money that could be spent in other areas to help bring healthcare costs down.
Some supporters of immigration & healthcare reform say that some of the undocumented immigrants that are here and that have communicable diseases need the healthcare so that they do not contribute to spreading their condition to others. That’s an interesting debate, considering that we wouldn’t have to worry about them spreading their “condition” if they weren’t here illegally in the first place.
It’s also important to point out Page 170, Lines 1-3 which specifically state that the taxes imposed to cover the costs of healthcare will not apply to any individual who is a nonresident alien (including their children). Basically giving free healthcare to whoever needs it, at the U.S. Tax payers’ expense. Again the U.S. taxpayers will have pay for the costs of illegal immigrants, just like we do today. Only this time it will be written into a law that we are bound by.
We believe you are entitled to know everything in this bill and how much you stand to lose and how much it will cost you. Click here to see the full bill as it stands and then click here to tell your Members of Congress what you think of this bill.
As I watched TV yesterday I saw a Ford commercial touting the “Cash for Clunkers” program and found the fine print quite funny which stated something to the effect of: this is a government program that may change at any time. Not more than two hours later was breaking news that the C.A.R.S. program would end this coming Monday, August 24, less than a month after its July 27 start date, 2 months before its anticipated Nov. 1 end date and $2 billion over the initial budget.
While the program clearly boosted car sales and President Obama is touting its success, it’s clear that the program was ended due to the many flaws. The first thing that amazes me is all of the statements that nobody thought the program would be so popular. So, the government creates a program that they didn’t think people would take advantage of? Is that what they’re hoping will happen with health care? No one will get sick-it’ll be fine. The C.A.R.S. program initial budget of $1 billion then jumps to $3 billion within just a few weeks. Well, I’m sure they’ll get the math right with health care. Then mysteriously many people’s ”clunkers” that qualified for the program one day, didn’t meet the EPA requirements the next-many by only 1 MPG. National health care equivalent: “I’m sorry sir, I know you qualified for surgery yesterday, but today we just don’t think you’re sick enough.” At least there wasn’t much paperwork involved in the cash for clunkers program right? Dealers filled out 13 page documents that often had to be re-submitted for any minor flaw, 13 pages for $4500 and only about 7% of dealers have actually been re-paid. Of course how could dealers expect to be paid on time when the USTS was well under-staffed and un-prepared to manage this type of program? The program that was slated to run for 3 months and cost $1 billion lasted 1/3 the time and cost 3 times more than expected.
The C.A.R.S. model really should clear up any concerns about government controlled healthcare, it was only: over-budget, over-used, understaffed, required tedious paperwork, delayed payments, rules changed from day to day, and had to be ended 2 months early. Well I’m convinced! National health care will save us all!
Liberals and Democrats are frightened, and with good reason. Citizens are starting to publicly voice their opposition to the preposed health care or health insurance bill and the politicians are now getting an earful from their constituents. In response some of those same politicians have resorted to labeling protests as “astro-turf” and belittling protesters as ignorant, right-wing, gun-toting fanatics who are spreading “myths” about the bill.
In yesterday’s Yahoo article entitled FACT CHECK: Health Overhaul Myths Taking Rootby Calvin Woodward of the Associated Press the writer tries to de-bunk these “myths” with FACTS. The three main points of his argument surround end-of-life counseling, health care for illegal immigrants, and funds to cover abortion. Let’s examine his facts shall we?
First let’s consider his take on the issue of end-of-life counseling sessions. He first points to an NBC news poll that states “45 percent said it’s likely the government will decide when to stop care for the elderly; 50 percent said it’s not likely”. This poll as presented is not even directly related to the idea of end-of-life counseling sessions. Rather the respondents of the poll may be actually worried that the government may deem certain procedures as being too costly based on a person’s age in comparison to the expected outcome of the procedure and the length of extended life it may provide. Instead he writes “Critics have twisted a provision in a House bill that would direct Medicare to pay for counseling sessions about end-of-life care, living wills, hospices and the like if a patient wants such consultations with a doctor. They have said, incorrectly, that the elderly would be required to have these sessions.” Let’s examine an exact statement in HR. 3200, page 438 lines 17-25 “An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.” While paragraph 1 states an Advanced Care Planning Consultation shall take place between and individual and practitioner if “the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years.” Sounds fairly mandatory to me, but then again I read the parts in question.
Probably the best argument to a myth Woodward presents is in response to the same poll regarding coverage for illegal immigrants with 55 percent expecting the overhaul will give coverage to illegal immigrants. His pithy response is simply: “THE FACTS: The proposals being negotiated do not provide coverage for illegal immigrants.” I don’t know about you, but I’m over-whelmed by this well thought out and thoroughly supported argument! Without providing any language stating that residence or citizenship will be required to take advantage of free health care then how will illegal immigrants not receive it? We already know that illegal immigrants are receiving free health care through the use of emergency rooms. How will this somehow change?
One of the newly publicized concerns over the bill is the idea that it will provide government-paid abortions to those seeking it. The poll again over-whelming shows the public believes tax-payer dollars will fund these procedures, and without denying that the bill allows for coverage of abortion, Woodward points out that it will be at the beneficiaries expense, but even he cannot point to how that will be enforced. Regardless of your view on abortion, unless a pregnancy is life-threatening to the mother, abortion is clearly an elective procedure. I question if abortion will be covered then why not elective fertility treatments such as in-vetro fertilization?
The real fact is, most law-makers have not read this 1000 plus page bill and therefore have no idea what’s in it. While the above was just a sampling of some of the concerns the public has, there is even more to find fault with. I encourage those who are against this bill to keep speaking. I encourage you to visit the Open Congress website at:http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/showand participate in the poll regarding this bill-currently 82% disapprove.
Some of the main stream media would have us all believe that a “public option” to health care has been stopped by the Obama Administration dead in its tracks. The AP recently reported “White House appears ready to drop ‘public option’.” and a article by Politico reads, “White House backs away from public health care option.“. Are we to believe that the works of this administration have completely stopped just because we are protesting at town halls? Or is the Obama controlled media trying to fool us into thinking this fight is over so we can put our guard down?
President Barack Obama’s health care plan is not dead just because the House hasn’t put a bill on the Senate floor yet. Nothing has changed here, except that the Dems and the administration are now using “Health Insurance Reform” as the new cover phrase instead of “Healthcare Reform”. Aren’t they the same groups that also used the old phrase “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.” Well you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called “change”. It’s still gonna stink….just like government run healthcare.
As the media has reported, the Senate would not have enough votes for a public option at the moment, and many politicians have publicly stated that they feel that its a waste to even try to run it through. But that does not mean that Americans fighting against government-run health care are in the clear yet. Now we have the new “health insurance co-operatives” that are being introduced, which are funded and/or subsidized by the federal government. Which basically means that they are going to run by the government. If the language that comes out of the Senate looks anything like what some of the Democrats are proposing for these “co-ops”, then there is no real difference between them and the Obamacare public plan…other than what they are calling it.
