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.

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.

Government-run health care is NOT compassionate.

The idea that government-run health care is "compassionate" is refuted by the fact that people who live in countries where the government runs the health care market only have access to a waiting list. Why is it that those in Canada who truly need treatment trade their waiting list for the US system, even after they have paid a fortune in taxes for their "free" health care in Canada? Government-run health care leads to rationing, and rationing eventually leads to death panels. How is that compassionate? I don't want to be a statistic on a government budget. There are ways to reduce health care costs in America: a) allow Americans to buy health insurance from companies in all fifty states; b) tort reform: stop frivolous lawsuits; c) shift tax bias from employer- to consumer- health insurance; d) eliminate health insurance mandates.

Government-run health care is not a free-market reform. I realize it is obvious, but Obama's drones on Twitters continue to spread lies.

The most remarkable part of life is having people distort the obvious meaning of words into something that it was never intended to mean. Recently I had the fortune of arguing with a 'liberal' who claimed that government-run health care is a "free-market" reform! I have never heard of something this irrational.

However, a lot of the liberals have read Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," in which he trains radical leftists to use the framework that people are used to (capitalism) in order to support the Statists' perverted and unpopular radical views. Thus, when trying to create a government-run, authoritarian health care system, it makes sense to lie and call this "free-market" than to call it what it is -- a dark road towards serfdom, where citizens become subjects, and those within government become our masters.

For those who had the misfortune of going to a government-run school, a "free-market" is one in which an individual, freely and voluntarily, purchases products and services from another, or works or invests with another, without coercision, and without subsidies or mandates to interfere in this judgment. From the definition in Wikipedia: "A free market describes a market without economic intervention and regulation by government." Thus, by definition, the ObamaCare proposal is not a free-market reform.

Democrats want to take away your health care options. Meanwhile, you have a million films available to watch on Netflix!

If President Barack Obama had his way, the entire health care system would be run by a centralized, authoritarian, government-run scheme, which, incidentally, enough, would have "death panels."

What this means is that President Obama does not believe that individuals should be in charge of their own health care. He believes that he should be in charge of your care. However, he does not say that the care that he would grudgingly provide would be superior care. That is a major reason why individuals have gone to town hall meetings to tell their elected representative that they do not want the government to take away their health care options.

In a free society, individuals should be free to make their own health care decisions. People should have thousands of health insurance options, and the best way is to permit individuals to purchase health insurance from a company in any state of the nation.

It is ironic that the politicians want to take away one's health care options even when, in other parts of life, there are literally hundreds of choices for cereal, e-mail providers, cars, and movies on Netflix. The only part of our life that should be free from choices is health care! Your life is now property of ObamaCare, Inc. Go figure!

Rep. Diane Watson admits government-run health care is a failure, but proceeds to create such a system in America!

I went to Rep. Diane Watson's townhall meeting. This was a very unusual townhall meeting. It was quite apparent that Diane Watson was able to fill the townhall with an overwhelming number of left-wing lunatics who hold unreasonable and irrational political opinions. For instance, when Diane Watson talked about how she had not read the bill, the audience laughed and even applauded. That is not a very typical reaction from members of the public. In most parts of the country, such an admission would result in a great deal of scorn from the audience members.

Normal people are not enthralled with politicians, especially those who are open enough to say how lazy they are about the work that they are entrusted to act upon. Thus, it is striking that Rep. Diane Watson was bold enough to say that she is open to nationalizing 20% of the entire United States economy without bothering to read the fine print.

Some audience members, who read a script, and were members of some government-run health care pressure group, were demanding that Diane Watson propose the creation of an authoritarian, monopolized government-run health care system (single payer--also known as 'single provider' of health care: i.e., a monopoly).

Thankfully, I was able to ask her why government-run health care would work when it failed everywhere. Her answer was most unusual: She admitted that government-run health care systems around the world have failed, but she insists that we can avoid the mistakes that have existed in other countries. Doubtful. Some ideas are reprehensible regardless of what country one lives in. The idea that we need to copy the failures of other countries, such as UK, which exhibit an enormous amount of rationing of health care, poor quality and hygiene, is irrational. If an idea does not work in other countries, there is no sensible reason to impose it here. At least Diane Watson admitted that government-run health care has failed everywhere that it has been tried. That is a remarkable admission for someone who wants to create such a monster here in the United States of America.

Americans love liberty, and will not bow down before politicians

Americans have always been rebellious against government officials--whether in London or Washington--who wish to exercise arbitrary and abusive governmental power against individual citizens.

Americans hold the view that the government has a very limited set of objectives upon which it is empowered to act upon, namely, to protect the rights of individual citizens. Thus, it is the government's job to protect individuals from those who would exercise force, and thus, abridge one's rights. For this reason, the government must take action to protect individuals from criminals, foreign governments, and to provide neutral forums to adjudicate disputes between different individuals through the use of objective law.

When the government acts outside these constraints, it can be very dangerous to the liberty of the people.

Right now we are in the middle of one of the great debates in all of American history. The debate is whether the government has the right to force you to purchase health insurance, require private companies to operate under the dictates of government central planners rather than customers, and to slowly develop a pathway in which the government will control every aspect of health care. The US Constitution, however, establishes the powers upon which the Congress may act upon. No where in the US Constitution does it say that Congress has the power to pass laws requiring citizens to purchase health insurance, or to essentially require that government planners will have de facto control over American insurance companies. Americans are saying 'no' to all of these unconstitutional ideas in townhall meetings all across the fruited plane. This is definitely quite exciting to see. Keep up the pressure. E-mail your elected officials, and definitely call them. Show up at meetings and ask tough and pointed questions. We can defeat ObamaCare.

We were right: Democrats do hate America.

We always were under the impression that Democrats hated America. Finally even Democrats are being honest about their intentions and beliefs. We have waited quite a while. Now elected Democrats are calling opponents of their socialist policies 'mobsters,' 'Nazis,' and 'Astroturf' (essentially, fake grassroots protesters). Further, elected officials have been found ignoring constituent questions, answering phone calls during townhall meetings, and denying the existence of provisions within the national health care bill.

Americans are learning the truth about the Democrats--finally. The goal of the Democrats is to re-make America, evade or distort the true meaning of the US Constitution, and transfer power from individuals to government officials. But the people have found out what is taking place, and they are protesting. Congratulations, America. You make us proud.

The government has already made our health care system quite irrational.

I wrote an op-ed describing how our health care system is presently irrational. You can read it here.

Barack Obama is intentionally trying to destroy America

President Barack Obama has enough historical economic data and research to know that his economic policies are not capable of working. So why does he continue his disastrous policies, including, but not limited to, nationalization of financial, insurance, health care, car companies, and others; massive tax increases on every American; $1 trillion deficit spending; fake "stimulus" plans that merely increase the size and scope of federal spending?

There is a reason why Barack Obama is pursuing this path: He is intentionally trying to destroy the American economy. Remember: Democrats do hate America, and Obama has made this clear.

He is trying to "fundamentally" transition Americans from a capitalist economy into a socialist-based one. This is not an accident. He is not merely ignorant, misinformed, or stupid.

It's worse. He is doing this intentionally. Well, thankfully, the US Constitution does not give the President dictatorial powers. Congress is independent of the President, and they have their own unique constituency. When the American people tell their elected representatives "no," it will make many of these Democrats in Congress fearful of going along with these socialistic policy proposals.

Government-run coffee houses.

Do Democrats want the government to take over coffee houses like Starbucks? Read my satirical report here.

Video shows the horror of government-run health care.

This is a very good video that explains how the socialist, government-run, authoritarian, top-down health care systems do not produce good results at all. We need to spread the word to the public and ensure that they oppose ObamaCare, because they won't like it when they get it. Also, once this type of authoritarian system is in effect, it's very hard to repeal it.

Hands off our health care system.

Americans must loudly demonstrate to Congress that we do not want a government-run health insurance system. Every government health care system in the world has failed. Some have failed more than others, but all of them provide substandard care, less quality, rationing by bureacratic officials, and less choices.

Further, the debate about the "uninsured" in America is the greatest source of misinformation.

From Mark Levin's book "Liberty and Tyranny":

"In 2006, the Census Bureau reported that there were 46.6 million people without health insurance.

• About 9.5 million were not United States citizens.
• Another 17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year and could, presumably, purchase their own health coverage [1].
• Eighteen million of the 46.6 million uninsured were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, most of whom were in good health and no necessarily in need of health-care coverage or chose not to purchase it [2].
• Moreover, only 30 percent of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months.
• Almost 50 percent regained their health coverage within four months [3]. The 47 million "uninsured" figure used by [Speaker of the Houe Nancy] Pelosi and others is widely inaccurate."

Why are we trying to destroy the greatest health care system in the world? There is no health care crisis. Tell Congress to keep their hands off of our health care. Call (202)224-3121 and ask to speak with your elected representative.

President Obama attacks Swiss sovereingty.

Barack Obama campaigned for president in 2008 partly on a platform of trying to restore America's "respect in the world." Voters were told that America would reach out and try harder to show our friendship with those in Europe, in particular.

So how is Obama proving his friendship with Europe?

By trashing the sovereingty of Switzerland. The United States is demanding that certain tax related data from clients by Swiss-based UBS be turned over to the Internal Revenue Service. If UBS does so, it would undermine Swiss's bank secrecy laws, and thus, their entire banking system. When a customer places money in a Swiss account, there is the implicit assumption that their data will not be turned over under any circumstances to authorities in other jurisdictions. If customers no longer believe that their banking related information is kept secret in Switzerland, customers will find other jurisdictions that are able to maintain such secrecy. As a result, a lot of Swiss's banks will have fewer deposits, more will fail, unemployment will rise, and the economy will suffer. What does Obama have against Switzerland?

Interestingly, Switzerland is considering passing a law preventing UBS from complying with the IRS mandates. As Reuters reports, this case is "souring diplomatic ties."

So much for the broken promise of Barack Obama trying to repair relations with the rest of the world.

Is Obama asking the Russians for a tutoring lesson on how to get czars to enforce an authoritarian agenda?

Obama is presently in Russia. We're a bit curious to know whether Obama is asking the Russians how to get the czars to enforce Obama's authoritarian agenda. If anyone knows something about czars, it's certainly the Russians.