Obamneycare And Religious Freedom

The government is trying to force Catholic institutions to go against their religious beliefs by making them provide contraceptives and birth control to their employees. I am not aware of all of the details of this issue, but from what I have heard from several commentators it seems to be a power grab by the government and an infringement of religious liberties. I have not heard any good arguments in favor of it. I don't see what the problem is with birth control--quite frankly a lot more people need to use it. Mark Steyn draws a parallel between this issue and the main reason that the first European settlers came to America:

The church model the young American state wished to separate from was that of the British monarch, who remains to this day supreme governor of the Church of England. This convenient arrangement dates from the 1534 Act of Supremacy. The title of the law gives you the general upshot, but, just in case you’re a bit slow on the uptake, the text proclaims “the King’s Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England.”[...]

Welcome to Obamacare.[...]

The bigger the Big Government, the smaller everything else: First, other pillars of civil society are crowded out of the public space; then, the individual gets crowded out, even in his most private, tooth-level space. President Obama, Commissar Sebelius, and many others believe in one-size-fits-all national government — uniformity, conformity, supremacy from Maine to Hawaii, for all but favored cronies. It is a doomed experiment — and on the morning after it will take a lot more than a morning-after pill to make it all go away.

Obama has walked back from requiring that religious employers provide birth control by stating that the insurance companies must provide it. Rush Limbaugh seems to think that this not really walking back or caving in and relates this issue with the broader lost of freedom in America:

The Associated Press has learned. The administration instead will demand that insurance companies will be the ones directly responsible for providing free contraception." And we're supposed to applaud this? We're supposed to think that we have emerged with a big victory here? Obama can mandate that we buy insurance, and now Obama can mandate what insurance companies must offer -- and after mandating what insurance companies must offer, then Obama can mandate what insurance companies can charge for it? [...]

Since when...? I'm gonna ask this again: Since when does a president have the power to threaten to issue a rule gutting religious liberty and then claims the power to make compromises on that issue? This is how, folks, we lose our liberty. This is how we lose the Constitution. The suggestion that Obama has the power to alter that which he doesn't have the power to do in the first place, is simply unacceptable. The first thing he does he doesn't have the power to do. He doesn't have, constitutionally, the power to mandate that religious organizations provide -- free of charge or otherwise -- any abortion-related service with which they disagree. He doesn't have the authority. Then to supposedly correct it, he then engages in more authority that he doesn't have![..]

From violating religious rights where there is no power permitted to do so, to mandating the purchase of products, to now mandating insurance companies sell certain products at a price that's also mandated, from czars, to denying the right to travel, it's all here. We're living in a country that's becoming unrecognizable!

If the government is the entity that is providing people's health care and controlling 1/6 of the U.S. economy, then the government has every right to have all of these mandates that violates people's and religious institution's most fundamental rights. This is the slow creeping danger to people's fundamental freedoms in Obamneycare. People can't have the government provide everything for them and have freedom at the same time. The sad thing is that the Republican party is flirting with nominating a candidate who implemented a version of Obamacare that actually had a similar mandate for religious institutions. America's leaders ,to include Republican leaders, are selling the American people into slavery and bondage to the state. People need to wake up and get informed, especially republicans that are voting for Romney in the primaries. But as history shows people won't wake up until it is too late, I am reminded of the condition of the German people after being seduced into following a charismatic leader that resulted in loosing WW II and having tens of thousands of their women raped by Russian soldiers and their cities destroyed.

Obamneycare And The Future Of America

It looks as if the Republican party is not offering an alternative to the current president when it comes to transformative issues such as health care. (While this post isn't about Newt Gingrich, it should be noted that he is no conservative and has called himself a progressive and stated his admiration for Franklin Roosevelt.) It looks like the Republican party is flirting with nominating a candidate that is very hard to distinguish from Obama. The current front runner in the Republican presidential primary Mitt Romney's health care plan the he implemented and steadfastly defends is basically the same thing as Obama's health care plan. This issue was brought to light in one of the recent presidential debate where Rick Santorum challenged Romney on this issue and was told that this is nothing to get angry about. If the fundamental transformation of our society's culture and our country is nothing to get angry about then I don't know what is. Hot Air notes that having a republican candidate that supports government will run health care will be a big public relations win for the left:

Via the lefties at Think Progress, a video salute to Mitt’s cavalier assurance at last night’s debate that there’s nothing to get angry about when it comes to health-care mandates. Get ready for a long, long line of liberal attack ads in this vein once it’s clear that he’s the nominee: Even if they end up losing the election, the PR value to the left of having the Republican standard-bearer mimicking O’s rhetoric on ObamaCare is incalculable for the repeal battle ahead. That was always one of the greatest pitfalls in choosing Mitt — at a minimum, the right will have to temper its criticism of mandates during the general election — but darned if we’re not poised to go ahead and choose him anyway. And as Peter Suderman at Reason notes, this clip doesn’t even exhaust the similarities between RomneyCare and its much larger younger brother:

Via the lefties at Think Progress, a video salute to Mitt’s cavalier assurance at last night’s debate that there’s nothing to get angry about when it comes to health-care mandates. Get ready for a long, long line of liberal attack ads in this vein once it’s clear that he’s the nominee: Even if they end up losing the election, the PR value to the left of having the Republican standard-bearer mimicking O’s rhetoric on ObamaCare is incalculable for the repeal battle ahead. That was always one of the greatest pitfalls in choosing Mitt — at a minimum, the right will have to temper its criticism of mandates during the general election — but darned if we’re not poised to go ahead and choose him anyway. And as Peter Suderman at Reason notes, this clip doesn’t even exhaust the similarities between RomneyCare and its much larger younger brother:

During last night’s debate, Romney also defended his plan from charges that it resembled ObamaCare by arguing that in Massachusetts, “there’s no government plan.” He’s used this line before, but it’s never helped distinguish Romney’s health overhaul from Obama’s: There’s no “government plan” in ObamaCare either, or at least no more of one than there is in RomneyCare. Both ObamaCare and RomneyCare rely on a regulated market and an expansion of Medicaid. Nor is Romney the only one to point this out in order to defend the structure both plans share: In his State of the Union address earlier this week, President Obama touted the fact that “our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a government program.”

In the end, Romney only ended up reinforcing the similarities between his plan and President Obama’s. It’s hard to make a convincing case that the RomneyCare is somehow dramatically different from ObamaCare while relying on virtually the same arguments employed by ObamaCare’s most prominent defender.

Michael Tomasky agrees with Rick Santorum that nominating Romney will be giving up the issue of Obamacare in this years election:

The moment was, of course, the exchange between Rick Santorum and Romney when Santorum was aggressively challenging Romney about health care. Romney was going through his standard defense of his health-care plan, saying it was right for Massachusetts but not for other states. Santorum wasn’t buying it: “Think about what that means going up against Barack Obama ... You are going to claim [about the Affordable Care Act], ‘Well, it doesn’t work and we should repeal.’ And he’s going to say, ‘Wait a minute, governor. You said it works well in Massachusetts.’ Folks—we can’t give this issue away in this election. It is about fundamental freedom ... It’s going to be on your ballot as to whether there should be a government mandate here in Florida. According to Governor Romney, that’s OK.”[...]

On the substance, there is virtually no difference between the bills. Well, OK, there are two differences. No. 1 is that Romney did not vastly expand Medicaid in constructing his bill. No. 2 is that Romney did not raise taxes to pay for his bill. Now, both of those differences sound like they reflect very well on Romney—he didn’t expand a big-government program that most people associate with poor folks and therefore do not like, and he didn’t raise taxes.

But why didn’t his bill do either of those things? It didn’t expand Medicaid, because governors have no right to expand Medicaid. And he didn’t raise taxes because—ready?—the federal government paid for about half of it ($385 million, largely in Medicaid money). And the federal government paid for about half of it largely because of the efforts of ... Teddy Kennedy, Romney’s great ally in putting the bill through. Jon Gruber, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology health economist who worked on Romney’s bill, has said, with only slight exaggeration: “They’re the same fucking bill. He [Romney] just can’t have his cake and eat it too. He can try to draw distinctions and stuff, but he’s just lying. The only big difference is he didn’t have to pay for his. Because the federal government paid for it. Where at the federal level, we have to pay for it, so we have to raise taxes.”[...]

So Santorum was right Thursday night. Nominating Romney is giving up the issue, especially if the Supreme Court upholds the mandate. Obama probably can’t win the argument, but if his campaign handles the issue artfully, he can plant doubts in conservative and swing voters’ minds about Romney’s actual beliefs on the matter, which will play strongly into what presumably will be a key Obama theme of Romney as the say-anything candidate. Obama should even use Pawlenty’s little portmanteau. After all, it’ll be no loss to him if voters think of the plans as similar; making conservatives gnash their teeth is the point. [emphasis mine on the bold part]

Socialized medicine in the crown jewel of socialism and the welfare state. Health care is one sixth of the U.S economy, and with the passage of Obamacare the government is on track to slowly gain control of the vast swath of the economy and people's lives. Having this new entitlement will have a corrupting effect on the character of the American people by turning the society into an entitlement society. All one has to do is to look at the riots in Greece to see what a society that looks to the government to provide all of their needs leads to. If one agrees, like Romney, with the premise that government should be providing people with health care, then the government is justified in telling people what they can or can not eat and a whole list of other lifestyle choices. Nominating a candidate who supports government run health care would be a disaster for staving the tied of socialism in America and the end of the Republican party standing for personal liberty, limited government, and free markets. I believe the Republican party has already stopped a long time ago being the party that stands for these principles. Americans no longer have a choice in the direction the country is headed. This years election is shaping up to only offer Americans only with the choice of the speed that we are headed towards the socialist-welfare-state. I can not vote for Romney.

OBAMACARE

When discussing the recent government overhaul of America's health care system, one needs to look at it through the prism of this video where Obama states how a public insurance option will lead to a single-payer health care system-- or a government run health care system that "will control the people" in the words of another politician.

Aside from the fact that the new health care law will entice employers to drop their health care plans for their employees:

'Now, it should surprise no one that more and more companies are exploring the possibility of dropping their employee health coverage in 2014. A new study from the benefits-consulting firm Towers Watson finds that nearly 10 percent of midsized to large companies are seriously considering doing just that, and another 20 percent are thinking about it. Still others don't know. 'Many are uncertain how they will respond to the looming impact of state-based insurance exchanges in 2014,' says Towers Watson.

Obama did say that this would happen in the video above.

And there is some new information about parts of Obamacare. It appears that a part of it was know to be "fiscally unsustainable" before it was passed:

Administration officials knew before they even passed the CLASS Act that the voluntary long-term care insurance program it created would be fiscally unsustainable, a new report from select House and Senate Republicans shows.

Obamacare will be one of the most lasting legacies of Obama's presidency that will "fundamentally transform" America: it will transform the relationship between the individual and the government in a profound way and will change the character of the American people by making them look to the government to meet one of their most basic needs. It will also create another unsustainable entitlement program that will bankrupt America and help to "collapse the system". It is one more reason that Obamacare should be completely repealed.

Some Good News and Some Bad News

A Florida Judge has ruled the recent health care reforms unconstitutional approximately two weeks ago. This means that it is now illegal to continue to implement the new health care law. So what is the White House's response to this ruling, " ‘implementation will proceed apace’ regardless of the ruling". The White House has decided to ignore the rule of law in this particular case. I do not know how many past Presidents have decided to ignore a court ruling, but I do know that President Obama wants to redistribute the wealth / spread the wealth around and this is exactly what his new health care law does--this is only one source that states this. The rule of law is always a hindrance to those that seek to redistribute the wealth. As Hayek states in his book "The Constitution Of Liberty" page 232,

This conflict between the ideal of freedom and the desire to 'correct' the distribution of incomes so as to make it more 'just' is usually not clearly recognized. But those who pursue distributive justice will in practice find themselves obstructed at every move by the rule of law. They must, from the very nature of their aim, favor discriminatory and discretionary action. But, as they are usually not aware that their aim and the rule of law are in principle incompatible, they begin by circumventing or disregarding in individual cases a principle which they often would wish to see preserved in general. But the ultimate result of their efforts will necessarily be, not a modification of the existing order, but its complete abandonment and its replacement by an altogether difference system--the command economy.

This is only one instance where President has decided to ignore the rule of law. Why should the rule of law get in his way of providing health care to the sick and poor? Hayek's book is a must read for those that want to defend the ideals freedom and to see where a country that decides to pursue socialism leads to.

What will be the end result of this Judge's ruling? Nothing. The case will go to the supreme court where its constitutionality will be upheld. The whole point of this post is to show that the President has decided to ignore the rule of law and to point out where this leads.

Health Care Reform Update.

Health care reform was passed earlier this year and is having some unintended or intended consequences. I know health care reform might not be that be of a deal to some people, but these recent developments are a portent of things to come and eventually we all will be old and will be in need of quality health care. I believe that eventually that the government will be the only one of consequence providing medical care here in America and this will "fundamentally transform" one sixth of our economy, change the dynamics of our Country, and have a slow and creeping effect on the character of the American people that will make them look to the government to meet one of their vital needs. Other countries have a government run health care system and I am sure that things are all that bad in those countries. The service might be lower quality and there might be longer waiting times, but it won't be that big of a deal.

It looks like some health insurance companies are dropping child-only coverage due to the provision that insurance companies can't deny coverage to a child for a preexisting condition,

Some of the country’s most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans, rather than comply with rules in the new health-care law that will require such plans to start accepting children with preexisting medical conditions after Sept. 23.

Why would anyone put their child on a child-only policy and pay for it when they know that as soon as their child becomes ill they can simply enroll them into an insurance policy because they can't be denied? How are insurance companies supposed to pay for this? When this situation occurs, the insurance companies becomes providers of welfare and not insurance. The insurance companies can not continue to do business under these conditions. Who will?

College insurance plans might have to increase their premiums,

The two key areas of concern were whether student plans would be considered to meet the “minimum essential coverage” standard under the individual mandate, and whether the plans would be classified as individual or group plans in the insurance market. If the plans didn’t satisfy the minimum coverage standard, plans would need to improve their offerings (and become more expensive) to qualify, or students who opted for them would have to pay a tax required of anyone who declines the individual mandate. Plans classified as “'individual' are more expensive than group plans because the risk is not pooled.[...]ACE has yet to receive an official response from either the White House or the Department of Health and Human Services, other than a letter expressing their willingness to continue discussions on the association’s concerns.

And insurance companies in Connecticut will be increasing their premiums to comply with the new requirements under the new health care law,

The state's largest health insurer was granted rate hikes Friday that will be well over 20 percent for some plans, drawing sharp criticism from the attorney general.

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield in Connecticut requested a wide range of premium increases, which will take effect Oct. 1, to cover the costs of new benefits required by federal health reform. Higher prices mostly affect new members shopping for a health plan on the individual market rather than people who have group plans through an employer or some other organization.

It looks like some insurance companies are just exiting from the insurance business altogether,

The Principal Financial Group announced on Thursday that it planned to stop selling health insurance, another sign of upheaval emerging among insurers as the new federal health law starts to take effect[...] Other aspects of the health care regulations are worrying some state insurance commissioners, who fear that insurers are going to stop selling policies in some areas of coverage.[...] More insurers are likely to follow Principal’s lead, especially as they try to meet the new rules that require plans to spend at least 80 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on the welfare of their customers.[...] Mr. Laszewski is worried that the ensuing concentration is likely to lead to higher prices because large players will no longer face the competition from the smaller plans. “It’s just the UnitedHealthcare full employment act,” he said.

The last part of the quote above points to the fact that this new health care law might be leading to a state created monopoly or at the least will create much less competition in the industry. This is all by design on the part of those who wrote the new health care law, see the video at the end.

McDonald's is considering dropping coverage to 30,000 of its employees because of the recent health care reform,

McDonald's Corp. has notified federal regulators its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers isn't compatible with a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday, raising speculation about the fate of those employees' health coverage. Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn't loosen a requirement for "mini-med" plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans. The requirement concerns the percentage of premiums that must be spent on benefits.

It will really suck to be an uneducated or poor person in the coming decades in our Country as they will be the ones hardest hit form all of this "change". I might be incorrect, but it seems like a lot of companies are not hiring full time employees or they are cutting their full time employees to part time so that they don't have to provide them with benefits. It will be cheaper for most companies to not provide health care to their employees as the tax that will be imposed on them under the new health care law will be less than actually providing their employees with coverage.

And the recent health care law will increase the shortage of doctors,

The U.S. healthcare reform law will worsen a shortage of physicians as millions of newly insured patients seek care, the Association of American Medical Colleges said on Thursday.

It also looks like the Department of Health and Human Services is threatening private health insurance companies according to this opinion piece,

First, there are the heavy-handed statements coming out of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Two weeks ago, HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent a letter to the nation’s insurers with a plainly stated threat: Either the insurers conform to the political agenda of the administration and describe the reasons for premium increases in terms acceptable to the Democratic party, or they will be shut out entirely from the government-managed insurance marketplace. What could possibly have provoked a cabinet secretary to launch such an indiscriminate broadside against an entire industry? Simple: A handful of insurers had dared to utter the truth, noting that the new law has imposed costly insurance mandates that will raise premiums for everyone. For that offense, the federal government has essentially threatened to put the truth-telling insurers out of business. And what’s truly astonishing, and telling, is that the new law almost certainly gives the HHS secretary the power to do so if she really wants to.

Some people might look at these developments and say that the health care reform has had a lot of unintended consequences or that insurance companies or just plain evil. But keeping in mind the fact that the main supporters of this reform has stated that they wants a single-payer system and that there will have to be a transition period of about 15-20 years and part of the transition will include a public option, these developments seem to make a lot of sense. The public won't immediately support a single-payer system but if the insurance companies are made to look like the bad guy by being forced to deny or drop coverage to its customers because of basic laws of economics that won't be discussed here; then this will help create the support from the public for the government to do something to deal with the problem that was created by the government in the first place. It does sound like a very good plan to go about achieving the goals of those stated in the video above, I wish I could come up with plans that are half as smart as these. The fact is that the essence or fundamental aspects of health care reform will not be repealed by any party. How can any politician allow insurance companies to deny coverage to a child with a preexisting condition or take away the people's new right that was conferred upon them by the government? So the fact is, as I see it, that one day there will be no more evil insurance companies, or they will be insignificant, and we all will have high quality and free health care provided for by our loving government.

Time to Be Amazing

Great post by Doctor Zero at Hot Air.  He covers briefly how we got here from FDR to present.  He discusses the possibility that this march towards socialism cannot be stopped, but points out that it will be stopped, by Adam Smith's unseen hand (though he doesn't mention that specifically), eventually, and then points out that we Americans can rectify things if we stay properly motivated, and get off our asses.  Read the whole thing.

His summary paragraphs are more motivational, like the Bluto and Henry V links:

There’s no reason a country with vast natural resources, tended by a bold and innovative people, should suffer double-digit unemployment and capital flight. A compassionate nation, whose daily industry has done more for the downtrodden than every utopian scheme combined, has no reason to lower its head in shame, and tolerate the extraction of “charity” at gunpoint. The veterans of bloody wars against lawless tyranny should not accept a system that makes fools of the industrious. A great people, who live in reverence of equality, require no lists of class and racial enemies from opportunistic politicians.
This is the hour for passion and reason, not anger and disgust. The strength to restore our prosperity lies in the muscle and imagination of citizens who have been programmed to think of themselves as sheep, by those who seek power as their shepherds. The time for averting a painful disaster is short… but the most amazing chapters of American history were written in the last seconds before midnight.
It’s time for us to be amazing again. I hope you find that as invigorating as I do.

I bolded the section that liberals just cannot understand.

So, we keep this up, we keep proselytizing, we go to the Tea Parties, and hopefully, get enough people to see sense, before changing things throught the legal process becomes impossible.  I think it can be done.

Health Care Bill Commentary

Various comments from conservatives: 

First two videos from Republican Health Care fighters Paul Ryan (Rep-Wisconsin) :


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwk1aHU-pms&feature=player_embedded

and House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio):






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOdvn2dtM0A&feature=player_embedded

Both are good, Boehner's is more emotional and entertaining.  Starts slow, but the middle is powerful.

Conservative writer Thomas Sowell:

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/03/23/a_point_of_no_return?

and finally a couple of motivational speeches:

Henry V (via Shakespeare):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAvmLDkAgAM

If you didn't understand what he said, here it is in writing (may be just as hard to understand)

Enter the KING


WESTMORELAND. O that we now had here

But one ten thousand of those men in England

KING. What's he that wishes so?

My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;

If we are mark'd to die, we are enow

To do our country loss; and if to live,

The fewer men, the greater share of honour.

God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.

By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,

Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;

It yearns me not if men my garments wear;

Such outward things dwell not in my desires.

But if it be a sin to covet honour,

I am the most offending soul alive.

No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.

God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour

As one man more methinks would share from me

For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!

Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,

That he which hath no stomach to this fight,

Let him depart; his passport shall be made,

And crowns for convoy put into his purse;

We would not die in that man's company

That fears his fellowship to die with us.

This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.

He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,

Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,

And rouse him at the name of Crispian.

He that shall live this day, and see old age,

Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,

And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'

Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,

And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'

Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,

But he'll remember, with advantages,

What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,

Familiar in his mouth as household words-

Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,

Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-

Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.

This story shall the good man teach his son;

And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,

From this day to the ending of the world,

But we in it shall be remembered-

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he to-day that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,

This day shall gentle his condition;

And gentlemen in England now-a-bed

Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,

And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks

That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

and finally Bluto:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q47bpOCTcaY

Is This Our Guy? Paul Ryan Takes Dear Leader to the Woodshed

Many pundits councelled against Republicans taking Obama up on meeting him at the Health Care Summit today.  But, it seems to be universally agreed that the Republicans more than held their own at the meeting and gave Obama a bloody nose.

All the blogs are linking to Paul Ryan (Representative from Wisconsin) giving Dear Leader a little lecture on ObamaCare-onomics.  Enjoy the pained look on Obama's face and Joe Biden burying his head in his hands at the link as someone who actually has a clue tells them what their plan is about.

A telegenic guy (that's a non-gay way of calling him handsome) speaking truth to power with lots of facts.  I like it.  I wish those words could come out of Sarah's mouth, but, so be it.

Scott Brown Wins!!!

Epic, epic, epic! 
I can't sum it up any better than commenter 'Monty' at Ace's:

The Donk spin is inevitable, but it isn't going to work in this case. If it were any other state, any other Senate seat, then yes; they could spin it. But this was Saint Teddy the Blessed Savior's seat! Which he had held for more than four decades! And declared that health-care was his signature issue!

...and was just roundly defeated by a GOP candidate named Scott Brown.

This is not spin-able. This is a catastrophe, a calamity, a chasm the Democrats are still struggling to fathom. The "setbacks" in North Virginia and New Jersey are now looking like the vanguard of the slaughter to come, with tonight's debacle freezing the hearts of every at-risk Democrat in both houses of Congress. No Democrat seat is safe; they suspected this before but they know it now.

Obama's touch turns things to lead rather than gold; he is a lame-duck from now on. A failure. (And this is about Bammer, no doubt about it: by going to Mass to stump for Coakley, and failing, he made it about himself rather than Coakley. And he belly-flopped, just like every other time.) Democrats are going to trample each other rushing to the center to avoid the coming electoral bloodbath (much good it may do them), which means that the health-care bill, amnesty, card-check, and the KSM show-trial are probably all dead.

It has been a great day, my fellow Morons. A great day indeed.

Damn Straight! And, Way To Go Massachusions!

A confession of a supporter of health care reform.

This is not really anything suprising or new.

The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to."

Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."

Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, "Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted."

No wonder many Americans are upset. They know they are being lied to about ObamaCare, and they know they are going to be stuck with the bill.

Well, the President said the same thing. Damn, I thought this was about health care and taking care of the poor pitiful O so poor people and saving babies. Well most people think this and are blinded by the disguise of helping people and taking care of them. How can you be against helping the poor and sick and babies? I have talked to well meaning people that think like this. People are being mislead and misdirected into creating a tyrannical and all controlling government. America is very slowly and very gradually evolving into a welfare state with an large and powerful government. As long as one can work, as a slave does not matter, and make money and watch sports and drink a beer and read my pop culture magazine and watch the movie rewards and American Idol, why would one care? This is a major step to achieving this goal and controlling one sixth of the US economy. The current health care bill won't pass, but something that will eventually lead to, much later down the road, the government being the sole provider of our health care will pass. Come on now. We need to pass this, help them sick folks and babies out. Evil insurance companies and Evil Capitalism are preventing people from getting their health care. Government is going to save us from this!

WSJ: Worst Bill Ever

Another article on a matter that the RTPers are weak on: the Health Care issue. The Wall Street Journal says of Pelosi's Health Care Bill

but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.

Wow. That's about as serious a slam as is possible to make. What is so maddening is how effortlessly the Democrats shade and hide the truth to get their bill passed.

Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It "pays for" about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, "saving" about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.

Read the whole thing. Get some learnin'. Good stuff.

An entertaining song and dance in support of health care reform!

This video is very funny! I don't know if it is real or not. I got it off of Rush Limbaugh dot com. This is a video of students of the Ron Clark Academy, located in glorious Atlanta, that took place on CNN live. The kids are singing a cool song along with a nice little dance. I think that this school is a public-private partnership. Anyways, an entertaining little two minute video that shows what is happening in our education system. Before long, children will be pledging allegiance to the president or some system, like they do in those countries with an overzealous government. This is America though, so we don't have to worry about that happening. Again, very funny.

Health Care Plan doesn't exclude Illegal Aliens

The MSM, liberal pundits, and Democrats mock the Tea Partiers and their defenders, such as Sarah Palin for telling supposed untruths about Obama's Health Plan. Well, it is hard to say for sure what it is since there isn't one single plan endorsed by Obama that has been presented yet, but if Congress ever comes up with one, Obama will sign it for sure. I can't, off the top of my head, engage in this debate. But, gosh, those crazy Partiers, where do they get that crazy idea that socialized health care will be even offered to non-citizens when the Congressional Research Service says this about the House version of the plan (HR 3200):

"Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange."

CRS also notes that the bill has no provision for requiring those seeking coverage or services to provided proof of citizenship. So, absent some major amendments to the legislation and a credible, concrete enforcement effort in action, looks like the myth on this issue is the one being spread by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et. al.

Note that the Congressional Research Service is a department of the Library of Congress, so a group of Right-Wing Wackos for sure.

Use this in your arguments with libs.

Obama is "his brother's keeper".

I thought this is hilarious. I read this article about President Obama repeatedly invoking the Bible when trying to pass his health care reforms. "He said the reforms aim to carry out one of God's commandments.'I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper,' Obama said. He called health reform a 'core ethical and moral obligation." I noticed during the campaign and in his speeches that Obama often used the line that "I am my brother's keeper". One can wonder if he really believes or practices this when we look at his half brother who is living in an African mud hut. "Mr Obama, 26, the youngest of the presidential candidate's half-brothers, spoke for the first time about his life, which could not be more different than that of the Democratic contender. 'No-one knows who I am," he told the magazine, before claiming: 'I live here on less than a dollar a month'." Maybe Obama has some conflict with his brother. Obama wants to be the one to take care of us and provide for us, but from his record of taking care of his family, he also has an aunt in Boston who is facing deportation, I wonder how good of a job we would do at this? I can not believe this, I don't think the White house has said this is not true, or given and explanation on this matter. This reveals a lot about Obama.

Ronald Reagan's thoughts on socialized medicine.

I got this off of Rush Limbaugh dot com. The video starts off with a quote from Norman Thomas:"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

The main point that I get from Reagan's speech is how socialized medicine is a way to turn America into a socialized nation: "One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism 0n a people has been by way of medicine. It is very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggest medical care for people who can not possibly afford it."

This is a very good video that relates to current events. Reagan shows how socialized medicine is a big step towards statism and relates this to history. Worth ten minutes of your time. If socialized medicine is established in America and after this, "other Federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have know it in this Country until, one day, as Norman Thomas said, 'we will awake to find that we have socialism'. And if you don't do this, and if I don't do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset ears telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in America when men were free." The statist, central planners, big government people, socialist, communist, fascist, and any other name you want to call them have been trying to establish tyranny in America for a long time. The current attempt to enact health care reform is just another attempt, even if those who are pushing for it and supporting it don't realize this. One must remember that America is a fluke and an exception to the rest of the history of mankind that has been marked by tyranny. The statist, utilizing the "useful idiots", the ignorant, and human nature, will not give up until they accomplish their goal of destroying the world's shinning beacon of freedom-- doing it under the guise of taking care of you and proving for you.

H.R. 3200: the health care bill.

I was reading the health care bill and said to myself that it should be on the required reading list. It is 1017 pages long and very boring. Page 424, sec 1233 is the end of life counseling. Page 284 sounds a little fishy to me.

Some conservative points out some interesting passages. With the link above you can read the bill yourself and make up your own mind, if you can understand the bill. I did and I can not easily understand the bill. Anyways, one can get the information straight from the horse's mouth. A good reference. (I want to say that this is not the final bill that will be voted on, we have to wait for the Senate version, but this is what we have to work with for the time being.)

Health Care Debate

RTP has been pretty quiet about the health care debate. It's a complicated subject requiring lots of research to really comment intelligently. There are many blogs out there doing a great job of it. I am not motivated to do an in-depth report on it, but my feelings are summed up like this

(and no, I'm not going to provide link-backup to what I say!):

85% of the US has health care that is adequate if not good, and much better than most countries in the world, including those like the UK and Canada that have universal healthcare. A large percentage of the remaining people are illegal aliens, who are owed absolutely nothing by taxpaying Americans. Another large percentage of the remaining are young adults who choose not to have healthcare. Melkor is an example. They don't have a permanent job at this time, and are having fun, going to school, adventuring, whatever. He could have a job right now, but chooses not to, and that's fine. But, nobody should owe him healthcare because of his own decision. That leaves a small percentage of America without healthcare who do want it. This is unfortunate, but it is not right to supress the economy by increasing taxes and bloating government beauracracy, and lower the quality of healthcare for the vast majority of Americans for a small minority of people. And, though this is somewhat crass and cruel, those without healthcare can go to an emergency room if it comes to that and they won't be turned away.

My opinion. That's all.