Democrats are more determined than ever to push through the federal takeover of health care. Citizens have faxed, e-mailed, and phoned their elected representative; attended tea parties, townhall meetings, protested on DC, met with Members of Congress, voted heavily for Republican Governors of NJ and Virginia in November, and yet, Democrats in Congress are even more determined to press forward with health care fascism and socialism.
Democrats do not believe that citizens should be able to exchange their wealth for a doctor's services. Instead, Democrats want to confiscate the wealth of citizens, transfer it to a bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., and control the doctor by imposing regulations, taxes, and mandates on what they are able to do in their day to day practice.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare," according to OpinionJournal.com, part of the Wall Street Journal. If health care 'reform' (which we'll call destruction) is so great, then why would a majority party do something that it knows will result in losing a large number of seats in the federal legislature? It is not because the people want it. They don't. It is not because they want to do what is good for the people. All of the evidence from around the world suggests that such legislation will result in higher costs, the denial of care, and lower quality health services.
The only plausible answer that one can arrive at is that the Democrats are trying to impose socialist health care because they believe that it is the best way to turn the country into a socialist, third-world country.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Democrats want to ration health care, fund abortion.
The Democrats are trying to nationalize health care as soon as possible. And what is interesting is what they intend to fund with their 1,900 page monstrosity. Despite comments made by Democrats that the bill does not fund abortion, it does. We found the provision in the bill that does so:
‘‘SEC. 340O. COMMUNITY-BASED COLLABORATIVE CARE
9 NETWORK PROGRAM.
10 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may award grants
[Editor's note: In other words, in the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services]
11 to eligible entities for the purpose of establishing model
12 projects to accomplish the following goals:
‘‘(d) COMMUNITY-BASED COLLABORATIVE CARE
2 NETWORKS.—
3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—
4 ‘‘(A) DESCRIPTION.—A community-based
5 collaborative care network described in this sub6
section is a consortium of health care providers
7 with a joint governance structure that provides
8 a comprehensive range of coordinated and inte9
grated health care services for low-income pa10
tient populations or medically underserved com11
munities (whether or not such individuals re12
ceive benefits under title XVIII, XIX, or XXI
13 of the Social Security Act, private or other
14 health insurance or are uninsured or under15
insured) and that complies with any applicable
16 minimum eligibility requirements that the Sec17
retary may determine appropriate.
‘‘(B) REQUIRED INCLUSION.—Each such
19 network shall include the following providers
20 that serve the community (unless such provider
21 does not exist within the community, declines or
22 refuses to participate, or places unreasonable
23 conditions on their participation)—
‘‘(iv) A community clinic, including a
2 mental health clinic, substance abuse clin3
ic, or a reproductive health clinic.
In other words, if the Secretary of Health and Human Services decides to fund "community-based collaborative care networks" (whatever that means), the government MUST fund "reproductive health clinics," which is a fancy way of saying abortion facilities. They thought they could burry this on page 1441, but we found it!
‘‘SEC. 340O. COMMUNITY-BASED COLLABORATIVE CARE
9 NETWORK PROGRAM.
10 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may award grants
[Editor's note: In other words, in the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services]
11 to eligible entities for the purpose of establishing model
12 projects to accomplish the following goals:
‘‘(d) COMMUNITY-BASED COLLABORATIVE CARE
2 NETWORKS.—
3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—
4 ‘‘(A) DESCRIPTION.—A community-based
5 collaborative care network described in this sub6
section is a consortium of health care providers
7 with a joint governance structure that provides
8 a comprehensive range of coordinated and inte9
grated health care services for low-income pa10
tient populations or medically underserved com11
munities (whether or not such individuals re12
ceive benefits under title XVIII, XIX, or XXI
13 of the Social Security Act, private or other
14 health insurance or are uninsured or under15
insured) and that complies with any applicable
16 minimum eligibility requirements that the Sec17
retary may determine appropriate.
‘‘(B) REQUIRED INCLUSION.—Each such
19 network shall include the following providers
20 that serve the community (unless such provider
21 does not exist within the community, declines or
22 refuses to participate, or places unreasonable
23 conditions on their participation)—
‘‘(iv) A community clinic, including a
2 mental health clinic, substance abuse clin3
ic, or a reproductive health clinic.
In other words, if the Secretary of Health and Human Services decides to fund "community-based collaborative care networks" (whatever that means), the government MUST fund "reproductive health clinics," which is a fancy way of saying abortion facilities. They thought they could burry this on page 1441, but we found it!
Sunday, October 25, 2009
I went to a TEA Party in Griffith Park, Los Angeles, Ca.
I just got back from a TEA Party Express event in Griffith Park in the Los Angeles area. What is quite apparent is that the passion against the statism-collectivism-altruistic vision of the Obama Democrats is growing, and becoming stronger by the day.
It's rare to see a true citizens protest movement. Most people are too busy to get active in political debates. That's reasonable because in a free society, there are thousands of different pursuits that one can engage in. Now that our country is headed down a very dangerous course, one that could affect the very foundation of the country, regular citizens are becoming far more involved. It was truly a remarkable experience to see so many people at this event.
I saw people from every walk of life there. I heard an American who immigrated from Russia who said that she is getting involved because she does not want America to go down the path that Russia once went through. People who have experienced tyranny know the signs of its development.
It's rare to see a true citizens protest movement. Most people are too busy to get active in political debates. That's reasonable because in a free society, there are thousands of different pursuits that one can engage in. Now that our country is headed down a very dangerous course, one that could affect the very foundation of the country, regular citizens are becoming far more involved. It was truly a remarkable experience to see so many people at this event.
I saw people from every walk of life there. I heard an American who immigrated from Russia who said that she is getting involved because she does not want America to go down the path that Russia once went through. People who have experienced tyranny know the signs of its development.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
President Obama, unlike our Founding Fathers, does not believe in liberty.
I have been reading David McCullough's "John Adams." When reading this book, it's clear that John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington had a unique understanding of human nature. Human nature, they felt, resulted in government encroachment on the natural liberties of the people. Government, not the people, should be constrained in order to provide the maximum amount of liberty to the people.
Thomas Jefferson once said: "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
Notice that Thomas Jefferson wanted the chains on the government and not American citizens.
President Barack Obama does not want any limits whatsoever on his powers. He has not made any reference to the limitations on our federal government during his time as president. Even worse, prior to becoming president, he complained that the US Constitution acted to prevent government action, which he found problematic since he believes that it is the power and perogative of the government to involve itself in literally every aspect of our lives.
When listening to speeches and comments made by Obama, it's clear that he does not believe in the Declaration of Independent's clear reference to an unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. Every policy he proposes is intended to get in the way and block one's right to the pursuit of happiness. Just yesterday, Obama has proposed new limits on what higher level executives are able to make at their firms. Why does he propose this policy? Simple: He does not believe that individuals should pursue their rational self-interest by working hard and receiving a high salary to compensate them for their efforts. Rather than celebrate individual achievement, Obama believes in punishing it.
Thomas Jefferson once said: "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
Notice that Thomas Jefferson wanted the chains on the government and not American citizens.
President Barack Obama does not want any limits whatsoever on his powers. He has not made any reference to the limitations on our federal government during his time as president. Even worse, prior to becoming president, he complained that the US Constitution acted to prevent government action, which he found problematic since he believes that it is the power and perogative of the government to involve itself in literally every aspect of our lives.
When listening to speeches and comments made by Obama, it's clear that he does not believe in the Declaration of Independent's clear reference to an unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. Every policy he proposes is intended to get in the way and block one's right to the pursuit of happiness. Just yesterday, Obama has proposed new limits on what higher level executives are able to make at their firms. Why does he propose this policy? Simple: He does not believe that individuals should pursue their rational self-interest by working hard and receiving a high salary to compensate them for their efforts. Rather than celebrate individual achievement, Obama believes in punishing it.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Democrat Sen. John Kerry: You should be poorer!
Sen. John Kerry, authoritarian Democrat from Massachusetts, said:
"Let me emphasize something very strongly as we begin this discussion. The United States has already this year alone achieved a 6% reduction in emissions simply because of the downturn in the economy, so we are effectively saying we need to go another 14%." [emphasis added].
John Kerry is advocating a permanent reduction in our economy. This is an elected official who is openly stating that he wants America to be a poorer country. How will he do it? By 'capping' our economic growth by creating artificial and arbitrary restrictions on what individuals are able to do in the economy to improve their lives.
Thus, is it fair to say that John Kerry hates this country? Of course John Kerry hates America.
He does not like the fact that the US Constitution is a document intended to protect the individual from the iron fist of the state. Just look at what he says about this country and what he wants to do with the power that he holds.
Are the people from Massachusetts going to figure this out?
"Let me emphasize something very strongly as we begin this discussion. The United States has already this year alone achieved a 6% reduction in emissions simply because of the downturn in the economy, so we are effectively saying we need to go another 14%." [emphasis added].
John Kerry is advocating a permanent reduction in our economy. This is an elected official who is openly stating that he wants America to be a poorer country. How will he do it? By 'capping' our economic growth by creating artificial and arbitrary restrictions on what individuals are able to do in the economy to improve their lives.
Thus, is it fair to say that John Kerry hates this country? Of course John Kerry hates America.
He does not like the fact that the US Constitution is a document intended to protect the individual from the iron fist of the state. Just look at what he says about this country and what he wants to do with the power that he holds.
Are the people from Massachusetts going to figure this out?
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Once the government takes over the health care industry, it will fight against any competition with its monopoly.
When you are in a hospital receiving care, do you often think, "If only the government would take control of this entire enterprise, the system would truly be effecient and run a lot better"? Don't laugh, that is the argument being made in Washington!
Do doctors think that things would improve in health care once Washington politicians, bureaucrats, and courts override the will of their patients?
No one thinks this way. Doctors don't think this way, and neither do patients.
Further, once the government takes over health care, it is aggressive in its attack against any alternative to the government-run monopoly.
Let's look at Canada for a moment. There is a movement in Canada to offer more privatized health insurance there. However, the "government-run" monopoly advocates are screaming at the top of their lungs that such voluntary, individualistic care is harming the government-run monopoly system.
"What it means is that people who have no money, who are chronically ill, disabled, who require medical attention frequently, are going to suffer dramatically," said Leslie Dickout of the B.C. Health Coalition, as quoted in the LA Times. In other words, the government-run system is not paying doctors sufficiently, and offers long lines to patients, but the private-sector alternative is able to lure doctors through better pay, and patients with less waiting times, and that's considered unfair. These government-run health care advocates do not care at all about health care. What they care about is control over doctors and patients in a totalitarian, government-run health care utopia.
Do doctors think that things would improve in health care once Washington politicians, bureaucrats, and courts override the will of their patients?
No one thinks this way. Doctors don't think this way, and neither do patients.
Further, once the government takes over health care, it is aggressive in its attack against any alternative to the government-run monopoly.
Let's look at Canada for a moment. There is a movement in Canada to offer more privatized health insurance there. However, the "government-run" monopoly advocates are screaming at the top of their lungs that such voluntary, individualistic care is harming the government-run monopoly system.
"What it means is that people who have no money, who are chronically ill, disabled, who require medical attention frequently, are going to suffer dramatically," said Leslie Dickout of the B.C. Health Coalition, as quoted in the LA Times. In other words, the government-run system is not paying doctors sufficiently, and offers long lines to patients, but the private-sector alternative is able to lure doctors through better pay, and patients with less waiting times, and that's considered unfair. These government-run health care advocates do not care at all about health care. What they care about is control over doctors and patients in a totalitarian, government-run health care utopia.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Democrats in Congress believe in restraints on individuals, but no restraints on the government.
It's getting harder and harder to read the news lately. Everyday there is a new plan, policy, or speech by President Obama demanding that we surrender even more of our liberty, transfer more of our wealth to the government, and most of all, to keep quiet.
The politicians are trying to take away our liberty to decide our own health care and instead ensure that we're forced--from now until the end of time--into an authoritarian, top-down, government-run health care system that will ration care, deny treatment, and tax Americans into an oblivion. This is the type of policy that one would get from a dictatorship. Yet our elected officials seem quite content to ram this down our throats despite what we have said all across the country. It's sad. Very sad. But we are not dispirited. We do not give up hope! Never surrender!
The politicians answer to us. They are our employees. If they are unwilling to listen to us, ultimately it is our duty to show up in great numbers on election day and defeat them. They are abusing their power -- and therefore, it is up to us to vote in great numbers and defeat the authoritarian Democrats presently in control of Congress.
The politicians are trying to take away our liberty to decide our own health care and instead ensure that we're forced--from now until the end of time--into an authoritarian, top-down, government-run health care system that will ration care, deny treatment, and tax Americans into an oblivion. This is the type of policy that one would get from a dictatorship. Yet our elected officials seem quite content to ram this down our throats despite what we have said all across the country. It's sad. Very sad. But we are not dispirited. We do not give up hope! Never surrender!
The politicians answer to us. They are our employees. If they are unwilling to listen to us, ultimately it is our duty to show up in great numbers on election day and defeat them. They are abusing their power -- and therefore, it is up to us to vote in great numbers and defeat the authoritarian Democrats presently in control of Congress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
