A Supreme Court justice should present an image of intelligence, competence, and wisdom. Such qualities identify sound judgment and inspire public trust. But two of SCOTUS's "progressive" purists have sullied that image. In fact, we might wonder if a grasp on reality remains requisite for a seat on the high bench.
During ObamaCare arguments Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, "What's wrong with leaving this in the hands of those who should be fixing it?"
Were Sotomayor referring to the free market, which has been all but removed from the healthcare industry, we could admire her insight. But when we understand that she's referring to Congress, we must question her loyalty to, and understanding of, our Constitution. We might even question her sanity.
The U.S. Constitution doesn't grant Congress the power to force citizens to purchase anything, including health insurance. Such federal power is neither expressed nor implied, therefore it doesn't exist. But even if Congress were authorized to provide, manage, or mandate health insurance, who in their right mind would defer to Congress' wisdom?
The Congress that passed ObamaCare, to which Sotomayor would defer, was under Nancy Pelosi's direction, and Pelosi is contradiction personified. She recently told reporters that her Congress "wrote our bill [the Affordable Care Act] in a way that was Constitutional." That's beyond unbelievable, coming from the person who said ObamaCare must pass so we could discover what the bill contained. It's even more unbelievable when we consider that this same Nancy Pelosi piously dismissed a reporter's concern about Congress' constitutional authority to enact ObamaCare. And yet Sotomayor trusts Congress, which has proven inept at nearly every subject it addresses, to correct problems within the healthcare industry? That's psychotic.
If Sotomayor's views were isolated, or represented a worst case example of judicial reasoning, we might dismiss them out of hand. But her opinions are neither isolated nor a worst case scenario. Justice Elena Kagan upped the ante. One of the key arguments against ObamaCare is its coercive nature, to which Kagan responded, "Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?"
Kagan possesses, at best, a warped appreciation for giving. A gift is, by definition, free. ObamaCare isn't free. The cost may be reflected in mandates, fines, or coverage for the uninsured, but ObamaCare carries an unavoidable price. State governments, insurers, medical professionals, and individuals must absorb the cost of Obama's supposed gift while navigating the regulatory maze the requisite bureaucracy will create. A gift with such strings attached is better left unwrapped.
Because Sotomayor and Kagan are Supreme Court justices their opinions, however incredulous, are granted credibility. It needn't be so. Ronald Reagan warned us, "Don't be afraid to see what you see." While both Sotomayor and Kagan are educated, education doesn't invariably grant wisdom to its possessor. When we hear Sotomayor and Kagan speak on ObamaCare's constitutionality and benefit, let us not be afraid to see their incompetency and the threat to liberty it represents.
Showing posts with label healthcare reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label healthcare reform. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Saturday, March 10, 2012
End of the line for "Maha Rushie"?
Public figures are bound to offend from time to time. Occasionally they'll stick their foot so far in their mouth they'll develop athlete's tongue. Enter Rush Limbaugh, who might need to brush his teeth with fast-acting Tinactin. If you missed it, Rush called Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke some unflattering names after she practically begged congressional Democrats to force Georgetown to meet her contraceptive demands.
The villain is, predictably, anyone who criticizes Sandra Fluke. But keep in mind that Fluke is no innocent bystander; she's a feminine activist. She knew full well that Georgetown didn't include contraceptives in student insurance plans before she enrolled. Sandra's an operative who used her private life to affect public policy, thus inviting criticism. Frankly, Ms. Fluke is symptomatic of the entitlement attitude that has infected our nation. She demands a benefit at someone else's expense and is willing to grovel at government's feet to get it. A freedom fighter she's not.
However, we don't really know Ms. Fluke's personal affairs, and not all women who use contraception work at the corner brothel. Rush should've chosen his words with more care. He since apologized, leaving everyone to decide for themselves whether he did so sincerely or to stem the advertising exodus from the EIB network. But if anyone thinks this is the end of the line for the Rush Limbaugh Show, they're jumping the gun.
Conservatives support Rush because he publicly articulates their views on culture and government. As the fallout continues and they see advertisers, and a few radio stations, withdraw from the king of daytime radio a sense of panic on their part is normal. Despite Rush's apology the firestorm hasn't relented, prompting grave concern about Limbaugh's survival among his supporters.
Liberals, conversely, have indulged more fantasies about Limbaugh's demise than have teenage boys about Sports Illustrated swimsuit models. He's arrogant and uninformed, a colossal blowhard who must be silenced at all cost. In wake of his Fluke rebuke, leftwing forums and message boards are joyously singing funeral dirges to the despised Rush Limbaugh.
Whichever side of that fence you're on, you're reacting prematurely. Controversy isn't new to Rush Limbaugh. He has faced it before and emerged stronger each time. Remember Donovan McNabb, and the phony soldiers? It turned out Rush was right on both topics. He survived drug addiction, hearing loss, the great Viagra airport bust, and failed marriages. Each was said to be his undoing. But he's still there, coast to coast, weekdays from noon to three Eastern Time.
Leftwing personalities have uttered far worse slurs toward conservatives than what Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke. Bill Maher hosted two loons who fantasized about raping Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman. Oh, what a laugh that was. Michael Moore produces nefarious propaganda on par with Leni Riefenstahl and wins an Oscar for his documentary. Al Franken became a Senator!
So, love him or hate him, get used to him. Limbaugh isn't going away.
The villain is, predictably, anyone who criticizes Sandra Fluke. But keep in mind that Fluke is no innocent bystander; she's a feminine activist. She knew full well that Georgetown didn't include contraceptives in student insurance plans before she enrolled. Sandra's an operative who used her private life to affect public policy, thus inviting criticism. Frankly, Ms. Fluke is symptomatic of the entitlement attitude that has infected our nation. She demands a benefit at someone else's expense and is willing to grovel at government's feet to get it. A freedom fighter she's not.
However, we don't really know Ms. Fluke's personal affairs, and not all women who use contraception work at the corner brothel. Rush should've chosen his words with more care. He since apologized, leaving everyone to decide for themselves whether he did so sincerely or to stem the advertising exodus from the EIB network. But if anyone thinks this is the end of the line for the Rush Limbaugh Show, they're jumping the gun.
Conservatives support Rush because he publicly articulates their views on culture and government. As the fallout continues and they see advertisers, and a few radio stations, withdraw from the king of daytime radio a sense of panic on their part is normal. Despite Rush's apology the firestorm hasn't relented, prompting grave concern about Limbaugh's survival among his supporters.
Liberals, conversely, have indulged more fantasies about Limbaugh's demise than have teenage boys about Sports Illustrated swimsuit models. He's arrogant and uninformed, a colossal blowhard who must be silenced at all cost. In wake of his Fluke rebuke, leftwing forums and message boards are joyously singing funeral dirges to the despised Rush Limbaugh.
Whichever side of that fence you're on, you're reacting prematurely. Controversy isn't new to Rush Limbaugh. He has faced it before and emerged stronger each time. Remember Donovan McNabb, and the phony soldiers? It turned out Rush was right on both topics. He survived drug addiction, hearing loss, the great Viagra airport bust, and failed marriages. Each was said to be his undoing. But he's still there, coast to coast, weekdays from noon to three Eastern Time.
Leftwing personalities have uttered far worse slurs toward conservatives than what Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke. Bill Maher hosted two loons who fantasized about raping Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman. Oh, what a laugh that was. Michael Moore produces nefarious propaganda on par with Leni Riefenstahl and wins an Oscar for his documentary. Al Franken became a Senator!
So, love him or hate him, get used to him. Limbaugh isn't going away.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
One more precedent for tyranny
From the minute the Affordable Care Act was signed into law it was destined for the Supreme Court. Lower courts are split on the issue, with some contending ObamaCare oversteps federal authority while others accept it as the central government's legitimate function. The stakes will be high when the Supreme Court hears arguments next summer. Either ObamaCare will be scraped, establishing precedent to dismantle years of unconstitutional federal actions, or it will be upheld and liberty will again yield to tyranny.
From a limited government perspective it's difficult to see how the law can stand. The Constitution was written to restrain the central government, insuring it could legally act only within specified guidelines. Yet when courts, which are part of government, are the last arbiters of constitutionality, the guidelines are often blurred. Legalese supplants original intent, ensuring the Constitution lacks solid meaning. Jurisprudence is reduced to a legal playground where obvious liberties and logical conclusions yield to manipulation.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals Judge Laurence Silberman's recent opinion upholding ObamaCare's individual mandate represents such an abuse of judicial oversight. And lest Silberman's decision be dismissed as another wacky ruling from a pinko judge, understand that he's a Reagan appointee, an associate of Clarence Thomas, and considered a forceful conservative jurist. However, his decision represents nothing liberty can admire. In fact, Silberman's opinion confirms how the federal behemoth consumes those who enter its lair, regardless of said person's original ideals.
Federal authorities -- whether legislators, executives, or judges -- become part of a governing apparatus where there's no benefit in limiting federal power. Fueling the bureaucracy becomes the goal and the central authority is enabled to act as it wills. On page 29 of his ruling Silberman concludes that Congress has the right to force citizens to purchase health insurance under the Commerce Clause. If he's correct, every conceivable economic transaction is subject to congressional oversight. In fact, according to Silberman's opinion, people retain neither economic liberty nor individual rights. We aren't endowed by our Creator with unalienable and self-evident rights, but are granted privilege as the central authority finds pleasure. The entire experiment in self-government is turned upside-down.
Consider Congress' constitutional authority to "regulate commerce . . . among the several states," found in Article 1, Section 8. In Judge Silberman's opinion, "to regulate" means "to adjust by rule or method . . . to direct . . . to order; to command." The definition is technically accurate, prompting Silberman to assume an unlimited ability for Congress to affect commerce, even to the point of forcing citizens to engage in commerce that doesn't yet exist. However, Silberman's opinion flies in the face of the Founder's vision.
James Madison, considered the Father of the Constitution, would reprimand Judge Silberman. Madison described the federal government's constitutional powers as "few and defined" while recognizing those remaining in state hands as "numerous and indefinite." Madison found Congress' authority to regulate commerce only within its enumerated powers and not beyond. Consider, too, his assessment of the General Welfare clause:
With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
If the Framers considered Congress' ability to promote the general welfare constrained only to specifically delegated constitutional authorities, why would they empower Congress to regulate commerce at every turn? The idea is preposterous when liberty is held as a right of human existence. Yet it's perfectly sensible when the purpose is expanding government at freedom's expense.
While Silberman recognizes the Framers' distinction regarding what commerce Congress can regulate (p.29), he invokes judicial precedence to override the Founder's vision. To support the decision he writes, "Supreme Court jurisprudence over the last century has largely eroded that [the Framer's] distinction." What should be apparent is the lack of judicial authority to amend the Constitution through convenient interpretation and erroneous application.
Doubtful Judge Silberman meant to highlight a problem inherent to judicial activism, yet he did just that. Relying on precedent involves a fatal flaw. If one foolish ruling precedes a second foolish ruling, a foolish precedent is established. Subsequent rulings based on the foolish precedent will necessarily be of equal or greater folly. Precedent is therefore no substitute for original language when ruling on constitutional matters. Ironically, Silberman cites one of the most foolish, anti-liberty precedents in U.S. history to support his ruling.
According to Silberman, Wickard v. Filburn (1942) confirms Congress' power to force citizens to purchase health insurance. Filburn, a farmer, violated federal law when he grew more than his allotted quota of wheat, not for open sale but for his family and livestock. The Court unanimously upheld the law under the pretense that had Filburn not grown the excess wheat he would've purchased it on the open market. His action contradicted Congress' interest in preserving the national wheat price and supposed authority to stimulate commerce. Remember, foolish precedent equals foolish rulings, and foolish rulings produce foolish regulations.
If Congress can force the public to purchase health insurance because health care affects the overall economy, it can force the public to purchase anything. Automobile sales affect GDP. Can Congress then compel a citizen to buy a car? Can Congress also force an individual to buy a subsidized model from a subsidized manufacturer, say a Chevrolet Volt? Under such a pretence, the economic decisions the central government can force upon the public are infinite.
What's more, in light of Silberman's ruling based on Wickard v. Filburn, there's no private act government cannot manage. A homeowner has no right to remodel their residence due to the work's affect on the construction market. A car owner has no right to perform maintenance due to the affect on repair businesses. A landowner can't even grow tomatoes for personal consumption without undermining produce prices. Every economic act becomes a matter of privilege rather than right. The Court's decision on ObamaCare thus carries implications far beyond health insurance. At issue is whether citizens enjoy inalienable rights or the federal government holds unlimited authority.
Rejecting the individual mandate would undo a century of federal expansion based on foolish judicial precedent. Rulings like Wickard v. Filburn would be exposed as twaddle and the concept of constitutionally limited government would gain a foothold. Overturning ObamaCare means far more than overturning ObamaCare. It offers a sliver of hope that liberty has not perished.
Upholding federal authority to force individuals to buy government approved products is yet another blow to freedom. The foolish precedent will become further entrenched and every American will suffer as a result.
The stakes are high. The Legislative and Executive branches, combined with a generally complicit Judicial branch, have placed the Framers great experiment in self-government on life support. The question is whether the Supreme Court will establish a new trend based on liberty or follow the century-old precedent toward greater tyranny.
From a limited government perspective it's difficult to see how the law can stand. The Constitution was written to restrain the central government, insuring it could legally act only within specified guidelines. Yet when courts, which are part of government, are the last arbiters of constitutionality, the guidelines are often blurred. Legalese supplants original intent, ensuring the Constitution lacks solid meaning. Jurisprudence is reduced to a legal playground where obvious liberties and logical conclusions yield to manipulation.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals Judge Laurence Silberman's recent opinion upholding ObamaCare's individual mandate represents such an abuse of judicial oversight. And lest Silberman's decision be dismissed as another wacky ruling from a pinko judge, understand that he's a Reagan appointee, an associate of Clarence Thomas, and considered a forceful conservative jurist. However, his decision represents nothing liberty can admire. In fact, Silberman's opinion confirms how the federal behemoth consumes those who enter its lair, regardless of said person's original ideals.
Federal authorities -- whether legislators, executives, or judges -- become part of a governing apparatus where there's no benefit in limiting federal power. Fueling the bureaucracy becomes the goal and the central authority is enabled to act as it wills. On page 29 of his ruling Silberman concludes that Congress has the right to force citizens to purchase health insurance under the Commerce Clause. If he's correct, every conceivable economic transaction is subject to congressional oversight. In fact, according to Silberman's opinion, people retain neither economic liberty nor individual rights. We aren't endowed by our Creator with unalienable and self-evident rights, but are granted privilege as the central authority finds pleasure. The entire experiment in self-government is turned upside-down.
Consider Congress' constitutional authority to "regulate commerce . . . among the several states," found in Article 1, Section 8. In Judge Silberman's opinion, "to regulate" means "to adjust by rule or method . . . to direct . . . to order; to command." The definition is technically accurate, prompting Silberman to assume an unlimited ability for Congress to affect commerce, even to the point of forcing citizens to engage in commerce that doesn't yet exist. However, Silberman's opinion flies in the face of the Founder's vision.
James Madison, considered the Father of the Constitution, would reprimand Judge Silberman. Madison described the federal government's constitutional powers as "few and defined" while recognizing those remaining in state hands as "numerous and indefinite." Madison found Congress' authority to regulate commerce only within its enumerated powers and not beyond. Consider, too, his assessment of the General Welfare clause:
With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
If the Framers considered Congress' ability to promote the general welfare constrained only to specifically delegated constitutional authorities, why would they empower Congress to regulate commerce at every turn? The idea is preposterous when liberty is held as a right of human existence. Yet it's perfectly sensible when the purpose is expanding government at freedom's expense.
While Silberman recognizes the Framers' distinction regarding what commerce Congress can regulate (p.29), he invokes judicial precedence to override the Founder's vision. To support the decision he writes, "Supreme Court jurisprudence over the last century has largely eroded that [the Framer's] distinction." What should be apparent is the lack of judicial authority to amend the Constitution through convenient interpretation and erroneous application.
Doubtful Judge Silberman meant to highlight a problem inherent to judicial activism, yet he did just that. Relying on precedent involves a fatal flaw. If one foolish ruling precedes a second foolish ruling, a foolish precedent is established. Subsequent rulings based on the foolish precedent will necessarily be of equal or greater folly. Precedent is therefore no substitute for original language when ruling on constitutional matters. Ironically, Silberman cites one of the most foolish, anti-liberty precedents in U.S. history to support his ruling.
According to Silberman, Wickard v. Filburn (1942) confirms Congress' power to force citizens to purchase health insurance. Filburn, a farmer, violated federal law when he grew more than his allotted quota of wheat, not for open sale but for his family and livestock. The Court unanimously upheld the law under the pretense that had Filburn not grown the excess wheat he would've purchased it on the open market. His action contradicted Congress' interest in preserving the national wheat price and supposed authority to stimulate commerce. Remember, foolish precedent equals foolish rulings, and foolish rulings produce foolish regulations.
If Congress can force the public to purchase health insurance because health care affects the overall economy, it can force the public to purchase anything. Automobile sales affect GDP. Can Congress then compel a citizen to buy a car? Can Congress also force an individual to buy a subsidized model from a subsidized manufacturer, say a Chevrolet Volt? Under such a pretence, the economic decisions the central government can force upon the public are infinite.
What's more, in light of Silberman's ruling based on Wickard v. Filburn, there's no private act government cannot manage. A homeowner has no right to remodel their residence due to the work's affect on the construction market. A car owner has no right to perform maintenance due to the affect on repair businesses. A landowner can't even grow tomatoes for personal consumption without undermining produce prices. Every economic act becomes a matter of privilege rather than right. The Court's decision on ObamaCare thus carries implications far beyond health insurance. At issue is whether citizens enjoy inalienable rights or the federal government holds unlimited authority.
Rejecting the individual mandate would undo a century of federal expansion based on foolish judicial precedent. Rulings like Wickard v. Filburn would be exposed as twaddle and the concept of constitutionally limited government would gain a foothold. Overturning ObamaCare means far more than overturning ObamaCare. It offers a sliver of hope that liberty has not perished.
Upholding federal authority to force individuals to buy government approved products is yet another blow to freedom. The foolish precedent will become further entrenched and every American will suffer as a result.
The stakes are high. The Legislative and Executive branches, combined with a generally complicit Judicial branch, have placed the Framers great experiment in self-government on life support. The question is whether the Supreme Court will establish a new trend based on liberty or follow the century-old precedent toward greater tyranny.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Romney pleads the Tenth
Mitt Romney’s candidacy boasts several strengths. He is a successful businessman, an accomplished politician, and an articulate speaker. Romney is also perceived as economically conservative. In addition to those qualities he is photogenic, which is more essential to contemporary office seekers than a coherent platform. But Romney has drawbacks as well.
Some of Romney’s flaws aren’t actually flaws, such as Mitt’s oft-criticized Mormon beliefs. Pundits contend America isn’t ready for a Latter Day Saint president. That argument is familiar, and erroneous. Experts made the same case against a Catholic president just before America elected JFK, and against a black president before Obama. Thus Romney’s Mormonism is a moot point.
An equally empty argument concerns Romney’s lineage. Mitt’s Mormon ancestors practiced polygamy. However, Romney has been married to one wife since 1969. His “family values” appear impeccable. Mitt is no more a polygamist via ancestral link than a descendant of Jefferson Davis is a slaveholder. His heritage, too, is a moot point.
A legitimate criticism of Romney is his indecisiveness, as columnist Steve Chapman alleges in a recent editorial. Chapman’s main contention is Mitt’s willingness to change position at the drop of a hat and then deny having done so. Indeed Romney has a history of being a walking contradiction. He tried to out-liberal Ted Kennedy in a 1994 Senate race. Once pro-choice, Romney became pro-life. Once in favor of banning semi-automatic firearms, he became pro-gun. Yet to become pro-life and pro-gun are solid conservative changes.
Romney’s true Achilles Heel isn’t indecisiveness, religion, or heritage. It’s the Massachusetts healthcare overhaul he fostered. One of the key arrows in a conservative’s anti-Obama quiver is opposing ObamaCare. Can Romney distance himself from his Massachusetts system, after which ObamaCare was modeled? He can and he has. Furthermore, Romney’s defense is based on solid, conservative, pro-Constitution grounds.
Romney has cited the Tenth Amendment in reconciling Massachusetts’ healthcare plan with his criticism of ObamaCare. He contends the Constitution grants the central government no authority to deliver or mandate health coverage, nor does it prevent states from doing so. Thus Romney’s state program is defensible while Obama’s federal program is not.
Granted, the conservative position is to remove government entirely from healthcare, making Romney’s Tenth Amendment defense a technicality. But Romney can claim to have acted in the interests of Massachusetts. This position doesn’t necessarily defend government managed healthcare, but rather the right of each state to experiment with laws that fit the citizens’ desires. Favorable laws are retained while unfavorable ones are repealed. The entire nation suffered no loss of liberty under RomneyCare, as it will with ObamaCare.
Mitt Romney is a politician first and may be blowing smoke with his Tenth Amendment stance. But any candidate who makes a Constitutional argument for state sovereignty should please conservatives. To reject Romney’s defense entirely is to repudiate the principle of limited government and state sovereignty upon which our nation was created.
Some of Romney’s flaws aren’t actually flaws, such as Mitt’s oft-criticized Mormon beliefs. Pundits contend America isn’t ready for a Latter Day Saint president. That argument is familiar, and erroneous. Experts made the same case against a Catholic president just before America elected JFK, and against a black president before Obama. Thus Romney’s Mormonism is a moot point.
An equally empty argument concerns Romney’s lineage. Mitt’s Mormon ancestors practiced polygamy. However, Romney has been married to one wife since 1969. His “family values” appear impeccable. Mitt is no more a polygamist via ancestral link than a descendant of Jefferson Davis is a slaveholder. His heritage, too, is a moot point.
A legitimate criticism of Romney is his indecisiveness, as columnist Steve Chapman alleges in a recent editorial. Chapman’s main contention is Mitt’s willingness to change position at the drop of a hat and then deny having done so. Indeed Romney has a history of being a walking contradiction. He tried to out-liberal Ted Kennedy in a 1994 Senate race. Once pro-choice, Romney became pro-life. Once in favor of banning semi-automatic firearms, he became pro-gun. Yet to become pro-life and pro-gun are solid conservative changes.
Romney’s true Achilles Heel isn’t indecisiveness, religion, or heritage. It’s the Massachusetts healthcare overhaul he fostered. One of the key arrows in a conservative’s anti-Obama quiver is opposing ObamaCare. Can Romney distance himself from his Massachusetts system, after which ObamaCare was modeled? He can and he has. Furthermore, Romney’s defense is based on solid, conservative, pro-Constitution grounds.
Romney has cited the Tenth Amendment in reconciling Massachusetts’ healthcare plan with his criticism of ObamaCare. He contends the Constitution grants the central government no authority to deliver or mandate health coverage, nor does it prevent states from doing so. Thus Romney’s state program is defensible while Obama’s federal program is not.
Granted, the conservative position is to remove government entirely from healthcare, making Romney’s Tenth Amendment defense a technicality. But Romney can claim to have acted in the interests of Massachusetts. This position doesn’t necessarily defend government managed healthcare, but rather the right of each state to experiment with laws that fit the citizens’ desires. Favorable laws are retained while unfavorable ones are repealed. The entire nation suffered no loss of liberty under RomneyCare, as it will with ObamaCare.
Mitt Romney is a politician first and may be blowing smoke with his Tenth Amendment stance. But any candidate who makes a Constitutional argument for state sovereignty should please conservatives. To reject Romney’s defense entirely is to repudiate the principle of limited government and state sovereignty upon which our nation was created.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Bartering for healthcare isn’t as crazy as it sounds
Political opportunism reigns during election years. A candidate need make only one misstep, one errant statement, for an opponent to move in for the kill. Sometimes the blunder is real. Other times it’s a matter of spin and perception. Nevada’s ex-Senate candidate Sue Lowden, a Republican, learned this lesson firsthand.
Lowden became a target when she suggested that patients should barter for medical treatment. The fur really flew when she spoke of how our grandparents bartered chickens for their doctor’s services. Democrats seized on Lowden’s apparent silliness. They launched a “chickens for checkups” website and attended Lowden’s campaign events dressed in chicken suits.
Lowden’s detractors never considered her accuracy. Bartering was routine in bygone days. People traded their goods and services for needed goods and services, including medical attention. However, at face value it’s hard to imagine a barter system working in the contemporary healthcare market. Today’s physician couldn’t pay for student loans and malpractice insurance with roasting hens and bushels of corn. But what if we look beyond the surface of Lowden’s statement?
Thoroughly examining the situation--a rarity in contemporary political discourse--reveals that Sue Lowden’s bartering proposal wasn’t as foolish as grandstanding Democrat’s claimed. In fact, Lowden has touched upon a workable solution to soaring medical expenses.
Bartering is based on the principles of the free market. It is the voluntary exchange of a good or service that ultimately satisfies all involved parties. This is a common occurrence in all walks of life. For example, suppose a baseball team needs a left-handed pitcher in their bullpen. The team will trade unneeded players to a willing team for the needed pitcher. Both teams have actively participated in the voluntary exchange of held value in one area for needed value in another.
Trading a chicken for a dose of penicillin may not lower healthcare costs per se. But the free market principles that bartering represents will reduce healthcare costs significantly. Sadly, these standards have disappeared from the medical profession.
Few people know the cost of the medical treatment they consume; it has become an afterthought. We are conditioned to surrender our co-pay or file our claim and go about our business. With the consumer removed from the equation, there is no downward pressure on price.
What would happen if patients considered themselves as healthcare customers and doctors as distributors? Such a customer/provider relationship works to control prices in a host of other industries where transactions are subject to comparison shopping. Consumers naturally seek the greatest value, defined as the most return obtainable at the lowest practical cost. This process will establish median prices for various medical procedures, too.
Currently, there is no direct consumer pressure on healthcare prices. To assume a government run system will improve that situation is to believe in the tooth fairy. In fact, ample evidence has long existed to think that government involvement will only worsen the condition.
Medicare, Medicaid, the Veteran’s Administration and SCHIP are expansive, expensive, and unresponsive bureaucracies, rife with fraud and inefficiency. Another bureaucracy that further removes the patient from the direct cost of basic medical care won’t control costs. It will only mean less return for each expended healthcare dollar.
The quaint notion of swapping chickens for medical attention rings of nostalgia if not reality. But the basics behind old-fashioned bartering are real. Bartering represents direct involvement between market participants, in this case patients and healthcare providers. The subsequent competition between medical professionals for the patient’s business will reduce healthcare costs while ensuring that treatment remains readily available.
On our present course we can expect an exponential escalation in healthcare costs, and we’ll get less bang for each buck.
This column originally posted at American Thinker.
Lowden became a target when she suggested that patients should barter for medical treatment. The fur really flew when she spoke of how our grandparents bartered chickens for their doctor’s services. Democrats seized on Lowden’s apparent silliness. They launched a “chickens for checkups” website and attended Lowden’s campaign events dressed in chicken suits.
Lowden’s detractors never considered her accuracy. Bartering was routine in bygone days. People traded their goods and services for needed goods and services, including medical attention. However, at face value it’s hard to imagine a barter system working in the contemporary healthcare market. Today’s physician couldn’t pay for student loans and malpractice insurance with roasting hens and bushels of corn. But what if we look beyond the surface of Lowden’s statement?
Thoroughly examining the situation--a rarity in contemporary political discourse--reveals that Sue Lowden’s bartering proposal wasn’t as foolish as grandstanding Democrat’s claimed. In fact, Lowden has touched upon a workable solution to soaring medical expenses.
Bartering is based on the principles of the free market. It is the voluntary exchange of a good or service that ultimately satisfies all involved parties. This is a common occurrence in all walks of life. For example, suppose a baseball team needs a left-handed pitcher in their bullpen. The team will trade unneeded players to a willing team for the needed pitcher. Both teams have actively participated in the voluntary exchange of held value in one area for needed value in another.
Trading a chicken for a dose of penicillin may not lower healthcare costs per se. But the free market principles that bartering represents will reduce healthcare costs significantly. Sadly, these standards have disappeared from the medical profession.
Few people know the cost of the medical treatment they consume; it has become an afterthought. We are conditioned to surrender our co-pay or file our claim and go about our business. With the consumer removed from the equation, there is no downward pressure on price.
What would happen if patients considered themselves as healthcare customers and doctors as distributors? Such a customer/provider relationship works to control prices in a host of other industries where transactions are subject to comparison shopping. Consumers naturally seek the greatest value, defined as the most return obtainable at the lowest practical cost. This process will establish median prices for various medical procedures, too.
Currently, there is no direct consumer pressure on healthcare prices. To assume a government run system will improve that situation is to believe in the tooth fairy. In fact, ample evidence has long existed to think that government involvement will only worsen the condition.
Medicare, Medicaid, the Veteran’s Administration and SCHIP are expansive, expensive, and unresponsive bureaucracies, rife with fraud and inefficiency. Another bureaucracy that further removes the patient from the direct cost of basic medical care won’t control costs. It will only mean less return for each expended healthcare dollar.
The quaint notion of swapping chickens for medical attention rings of nostalgia if not reality. But the basics behind old-fashioned bartering are real. Bartering represents direct involvement between market participants, in this case patients and healthcare providers. The subsequent competition between medical professionals for the patient’s business will reduce healthcare costs while ensuring that treatment remains readily available.
On our present course we can expect an exponential escalation in healthcare costs, and we’ll get less bang for each buck.
This column originally posted at American Thinker.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Deconstructing the health-auto insurance comparison
A frequent argument for nationalized healthcare is the comparison to auto insurance. Obamacare advocates reason that since government requires people to purchase auto insurance government can also require people to purchase health insurance. The flaws in that argument are numerous.
Compulsory auto insurance coverage is a state issue. Each state establishes minimum bodily injury and property damage liability coverage requirements as it deems appropriate. However, liability insurance provides no benefits to the policyholder beyond the transfer of risk. The auto insurance requirement serves to protect the public from catastrophic losses the insured may cause.
While auto liability is compulsory, drivers aren’t required to purchase coverage that protects personal interests. The state isn’t concerned with how someone replaces their vehicle or pays personal medical expenses that result from their actions.
Antagonists may counter that banks require collision coverage. But the banks aren’t government. Banks are lien holders with vested interests in the collateral. Thus borrowers are required to protect their vehicles. Once loans are repaid banks have no interest in the vehicles and the insurance requirement disappears.
Whether liability or collision, the government healthcare advocate still argues that auto insurance is government mandated. This is a half truth. States require drivers to carry liability insurance as a condition of using the public roads. However, there is no actual demand on anyone to buy auto insurance. If a person chooses not to drive a motorized vehicle on the public roadways the auto insurance requirement is inapplicable.
Federally imposed health insurance isn't comparable to a state’s auto liability insurance mandate. First, the federal government is forcing us--under threat of fine or possible imprisonment--to buy personal insurance from a private company. Second, you have no viable option to avoid the federal government’s imposition. Everyone will be required to carry personal health insurance. Third, congress has no legitimate authority to force free people to purchase products or services no matter the perceived good or value they may bring to the individual.
The Constitution’s interstate commerce and general welfare clauses (Art. 1, Sect. 8) don’t provide cover for nationalized healthcare either. In Federalist #41 James Madison declares that applying those clauses to areas beyond Congress’ enumerated powers is, at best, a total misconstruction. Those powers are applicable only within the authority specifically granted to the central government.
Providing individual medical care or requiring individuals to buy insurance aren’t enumerated powers. Therefore, according to the Tenth Amendment, those powers are retained by the states and the people. Via their auto insurance requirements, states have indicated that their interest lies in protecting the general public against loss incurred from an individual’s negligence, not in protecting a person against their own actions. Thus health insurance and medical decisions are rights retained by the people.
No government has a vested interest in your health or health habits. Personal health is an individual responsibility with the rewards and consequences of each persons decisions borne accordingly.
What about catastrophic medical expenses? Doesn’t society bear that cost for the uninsured? Yes, but only in a collectivist society. In a free society people bear their own burdens whenever possible and seek charitable assistance when necessary. Involving government inhibits individual responsibility and encourages risky behavior.
Suppose government required drivers to carry collision insurance at a government-mandated cost. The financial incentive for safe driving is reduced. While personal expense motivates responsible behavior the opposite is true when consequences are shifted to third parties.
To argue for federal healthcare mandates based on the existence of state auto liability insurance requirements is political sleight of hand. Anyone making that case is banking on public ignorance for their success.
This column first appeared at AmericanThinker.com.
Compulsory auto insurance coverage is a state issue. Each state establishes minimum bodily injury and property damage liability coverage requirements as it deems appropriate. However, liability insurance provides no benefits to the policyholder beyond the transfer of risk. The auto insurance requirement serves to protect the public from catastrophic losses the insured may cause.
While auto liability is compulsory, drivers aren’t required to purchase coverage that protects personal interests. The state isn’t concerned with how someone replaces their vehicle or pays personal medical expenses that result from their actions.
Antagonists may counter that banks require collision coverage. But the banks aren’t government. Banks are lien holders with vested interests in the collateral. Thus borrowers are required to protect their vehicles. Once loans are repaid banks have no interest in the vehicles and the insurance requirement disappears.
Whether liability or collision, the government healthcare advocate still argues that auto insurance is government mandated. This is a half truth. States require drivers to carry liability insurance as a condition of using the public roads. However, there is no actual demand on anyone to buy auto insurance. If a person chooses not to drive a motorized vehicle on the public roadways the auto insurance requirement is inapplicable.
Federally imposed health insurance isn't comparable to a state’s auto liability insurance mandate. First, the federal government is forcing us--under threat of fine or possible imprisonment--to buy personal insurance from a private company. Second, you have no viable option to avoid the federal government’s imposition. Everyone will be required to carry personal health insurance. Third, congress has no legitimate authority to force free people to purchase products or services no matter the perceived good or value they may bring to the individual.
The Constitution’s interstate commerce and general welfare clauses (Art. 1, Sect. 8) don’t provide cover for nationalized healthcare either. In Federalist #41 James Madison declares that applying those clauses to areas beyond Congress’ enumerated powers is, at best, a total misconstruction. Those powers are applicable only within the authority specifically granted to the central government.
Providing individual medical care or requiring individuals to buy insurance aren’t enumerated powers. Therefore, according to the Tenth Amendment, those powers are retained by the states and the people. Via their auto insurance requirements, states have indicated that their interest lies in protecting the general public against loss incurred from an individual’s negligence, not in protecting a person against their own actions. Thus health insurance and medical decisions are rights retained by the people.
No government has a vested interest in your health or health habits. Personal health is an individual responsibility with the rewards and consequences of each persons decisions borne accordingly.
What about catastrophic medical expenses? Doesn’t society bear that cost for the uninsured? Yes, but only in a collectivist society. In a free society people bear their own burdens whenever possible and seek charitable assistance when necessary. Involving government inhibits individual responsibility and encourages risky behavior.
Suppose government required drivers to carry collision insurance at a government-mandated cost. The financial incentive for safe driving is reduced. While personal expense motivates responsible behavior the opposite is true when consequences are shifted to third parties.
To argue for federal healthcare mandates based on the existence of state auto liability insurance requirements is political sleight of hand. Anyone making that case is banking on public ignorance for their success.
This column first appeared at AmericanThinker.com.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Pelosi’s analogy is all too clear
For an analogy to be worthwhile it must achieve the desired result. For example, one might illustrate a poor decision by comparing it to benching Payton Manning in favor of a rookie quarterback. Conversely, no one wanting to praise a military campaign will say it was as successful as Hitler’s siege of Stalingrad.
Such a short lesson in analogies. Yet for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi it is a lesson unlearned. During the pro-healthcare speech she delivered just prior to the House vote she made a terrible analogy. Madame Speaker said, “We will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare and now, tonight, healthcare for all Americans.”
Pelosi’s comparison was wholly illogical. Why would a supporter of the healthcare legislation compare the bill to two bankrupt behemoths? That’s like bragging on your team’s chances to win the 2010 World Series by comparing them to the Chicago Cubs. To promote the healthcare bill Pelosi should’ve compared it to something, anything, besides Social Security and Medicare.
Social Security isn’t exactly the model for sound financial management. The New York Times reported in 2004 that Social Security would be in the red by 2018 and the trust fund depleted by 2044. That’s not a healthy financial outlook, and even the Times’ dour forecast is overly optimistic.
Last year, Heritage Foundation analyst David John painted a far gloomier portrait of Social Security. According to Mr. John, Social Security is running a deficit right now with little to no chance of reversal. He predicts that the trust fund will go broke in 2037, seven years earlier than the 2004 report projected. Furthermore, the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) says Social Security’s unfunded liability exceeds $17.5 trillion.
Medicare is no more secure than Social Security. In fact, Medicare’s future is far bleaker. The NCPA places Medicare’s unfunded liability at more than $89 trillion. That’s a big number. Let’s put it in its proper perspective. There are roughly 31.5 million seconds in one calendar year. If you earn one dollar for each of those seconds ($3,600 per hour) it would take 2.82 million years to satisfy Medicare’s future benefit obligations. In astral terms, 89 trillion is 15 light years away, or about three times the distance from Earth to Alpha Centauri.
By 2054 the combined Social Security/Medicare payroll tax burden will rise from today’s 15.3-percent to 37-percent. Half of all general revenues collected will be transferred to those programs in 2030, rising to nearly 75-percent in 2060. And these expenditures will be required of a government that consistently outspends its annual receipts.
One has to wonder if Speaker Pelosi realized what she was saying when she beamed about joining the creators of Social Security and Medicare. According to her own analogy Congress and the Obama administration have imposed upon America a program destined for high taxation, inadequate service, saucy bureaucrats, fraud, waste and future insolvency. If she was trying to boost public confidence in the healthcare bill she should’ve exercised greater care in picking her comparisons.
Pelosi’s words did nothing to confirm the legitimacy of her argument. However, through sheer chance, she couldn’t have been more on target. We’re a nation of enormous debt, a bloated budget and a growing sense of entitlement. Now we have a healthcare program that a third-grader wouldn’t believe will reduce any of the three.
Pelosi is correct; she and her party joined those who established Social Security and Medicare, and all the red ink that goes with them. That’s no accomplishment of which a reasonable person would boast. No wonder her favorable rating is 11-percent.
Originally published at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/pelosi_proud_to_place_healthca.html
Such a short lesson in analogies. Yet for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi it is a lesson unlearned. During the pro-healthcare speech she delivered just prior to the House vote she made a terrible analogy. Madame Speaker said, “We will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare and now, tonight, healthcare for all Americans.”
Pelosi’s comparison was wholly illogical. Why would a supporter of the healthcare legislation compare the bill to two bankrupt behemoths? That’s like bragging on your team’s chances to win the 2010 World Series by comparing them to the Chicago Cubs. To promote the healthcare bill Pelosi should’ve compared it to something, anything, besides Social Security and Medicare.
Social Security isn’t exactly the model for sound financial management. The New York Times reported in 2004 that Social Security would be in the red by 2018 and the trust fund depleted by 2044. That’s not a healthy financial outlook, and even the Times’ dour forecast is overly optimistic.
Last year, Heritage Foundation analyst David John painted a far gloomier portrait of Social Security. According to Mr. John, Social Security is running a deficit right now with little to no chance of reversal. He predicts that the trust fund will go broke in 2037, seven years earlier than the 2004 report projected. Furthermore, the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) says Social Security’s unfunded liability exceeds $17.5 trillion.
Medicare is no more secure than Social Security. In fact, Medicare’s future is far bleaker. The NCPA places Medicare’s unfunded liability at more than $89 trillion. That’s a big number. Let’s put it in its proper perspective. There are roughly 31.5 million seconds in one calendar year. If you earn one dollar for each of those seconds ($3,600 per hour) it would take 2.82 million years to satisfy Medicare’s future benefit obligations. In astral terms, 89 trillion is 15 light years away, or about three times the distance from Earth to Alpha Centauri.
By 2054 the combined Social Security/Medicare payroll tax burden will rise from today’s 15.3-percent to 37-percent. Half of all general revenues collected will be transferred to those programs in 2030, rising to nearly 75-percent in 2060. And these expenditures will be required of a government that consistently outspends its annual receipts.
One has to wonder if Speaker Pelosi realized what she was saying when she beamed about joining the creators of Social Security and Medicare. According to her own analogy Congress and the Obama administration have imposed upon America a program destined for high taxation, inadequate service, saucy bureaucrats, fraud, waste and future insolvency. If she was trying to boost public confidence in the healthcare bill she should’ve exercised greater care in picking her comparisons.
Pelosi’s words did nothing to confirm the legitimacy of her argument. However, through sheer chance, she couldn’t have been more on target. We’re a nation of enormous debt, a bloated budget and a growing sense of entitlement. Now we have a healthcare program that a third-grader wouldn’t believe will reduce any of the three.
Pelosi is correct; she and her party joined those who established Social Security and Medicare, and all the red ink that goes with them. That’s no accomplishment of which a reasonable person would boast. No wonder her favorable rating is 11-percent.
Originally published at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/pelosi_proud_to_place_healthca.html
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Rep. Weiner, we aren’t a nation of whiners
Was the Massachusetts Senate race a bellwether on government healthcare? Maybe so. Scott Brown made opposition to the Reid/Pelosi agenda paramount in his campaign. He won. And it’s significant for a Republican to have won the seat Ted Kennedy occupied for 47 years.
Does Brown’s election mean that healthcare reform is dead? Not necessarily. Maine Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe remain Senate wildcards. If just one of them defects—and both have been known to “reach across the aisle”—some form of healthcare bill could proceed. Thus far both have held the line.
This Republican solidarity is no surprise to Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), who doesn’t think a GOP defection is likely. Prior to the election, Rep. Weiner said a Scott Brown victory would signal the death of healthcare.
Mr. Weiner likely means healthcare reform will die. In that case I hope he is correct. But considering the leftist’s mindset, Weiner may mean that healthcare will disappear altogether, as if it can’t exist without government.
Such flawed thinking about government is why we have a $12 trillion debt and more than $60 trillion in unfunded government promises. It is why the dollar is becoming play money and American businesses have difficulty competing. It is why we have a mortgage crisis and a housing bubble, and why we depend on a communist country half a world away to float our debt. In short, the idea that government can provide all things to all people is why we are on the cusp of national bankruptcy.
No one needs the government’s permission to receive healthcare. Each of us can do that on our own. Go to the doctor if you’re sick; you’ll be treated. If you lack insurance you can always pay the bill directly. Clinics also offer payment plans for patients who can’t afford to pay their bills in full.
What’s more, you don’t have to visit the family doctor every time you get a headache or experience post-nasal drip. Finally, hospitals and emergency rooms are required to provide essential medical care regardless of a patient’s ability to pay. All of this could change in the name of “reform”, leaving everyone dependent on the federal bureaucracy.
Dependence on the central government for daily and personal needs is the politician’s vehicle to reelection. Dependency is an enslaving cycle that robs people of their initiative, motivation, dignity, self-respect and, finally, their liberty. Need food? Call on government. Need housing? Call on government. Need medicine? Call on government. Need healthcare? Well, you get the idea.
Politicians like Anthony Weiner believe that all good blessings flow from government. In return, all power and authority returns to those who wield government’s reigns. It’s a tidy little circle, and the antithesis of liberty.
Rep. Weiner, not all Americans are the pitiful, selfish, pathetic, whining beggars you need to maintain your House seat. Perhaps your district is comprised of such people. But that cannot be the case for the nation overall. If so, we are doomed as a nation and a people, for freedom cannot survive on dependency. Furthermore, centralized systems eventually collapse under their own weight.
No Mr. Weiner, America isn’t a nation of whiners, although we have our share. America wasn’t established, secured, or built by people who waited on government programs. Ours is a nation founded upon the independent spirit of each individual.
We can make our own decisions. We can reap our rewards and suffer our consequences--in healthcare and other matters--just fine without you, Mr. Weiner. Finally, healthcare will not die without your magic finger. In fact, minus government’s manipulative hand, it will be much better and more readily available.
Here’s hoping that Mr. Weiner is correct about healthcare reform being dead. Here’s hoping, too, that America will tell congressmen like Weiner that we’re sick and tired of government meddling. We are not the whiners he believes us to be.
Does Brown’s election mean that healthcare reform is dead? Not necessarily. Maine Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe remain Senate wildcards. If just one of them defects—and both have been known to “reach across the aisle”—some form of healthcare bill could proceed. Thus far both have held the line.
This Republican solidarity is no surprise to Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), who doesn’t think a GOP defection is likely. Prior to the election, Rep. Weiner said a Scott Brown victory would signal the death of healthcare.
Mr. Weiner likely means healthcare reform will die. In that case I hope he is correct. But considering the leftist’s mindset, Weiner may mean that healthcare will disappear altogether, as if it can’t exist without government.
Such flawed thinking about government is why we have a $12 trillion debt and more than $60 trillion in unfunded government promises. It is why the dollar is becoming play money and American businesses have difficulty competing. It is why we have a mortgage crisis and a housing bubble, and why we depend on a communist country half a world away to float our debt. In short, the idea that government can provide all things to all people is why we are on the cusp of national bankruptcy.
No one needs the government’s permission to receive healthcare. Each of us can do that on our own. Go to the doctor if you’re sick; you’ll be treated. If you lack insurance you can always pay the bill directly. Clinics also offer payment plans for patients who can’t afford to pay their bills in full.
What’s more, you don’t have to visit the family doctor every time you get a headache or experience post-nasal drip. Finally, hospitals and emergency rooms are required to provide essential medical care regardless of a patient’s ability to pay. All of this could change in the name of “reform”, leaving everyone dependent on the federal bureaucracy.
Dependence on the central government for daily and personal needs is the politician’s vehicle to reelection. Dependency is an enslaving cycle that robs people of their initiative, motivation, dignity, self-respect and, finally, their liberty. Need food? Call on government. Need housing? Call on government. Need medicine? Call on government. Need healthcare? Well, you get the idea.
Politicians like Anthony Weiner believe that all good blessings flow from government. In return, all power and authority returns to those who wield government’s reigns. It’s a tidy little circle, and the antithesis of liberty.
Rep. Weiner, not all Americans are the pitiful, selfish, pathetic, whining beggars you need to maintain your House seat. Perhaps your district is comprised of such people. But that cannot be the case for the nation overall. If so, we are doomed as a nation and a people, for freedom cannot survive on dependency. Furthermore, centralized systems eventually collapse under their own weight.
No Mr. Weiner, America isn’t a nation of whiners, although we have our share. America wasn’t established, secured, or built by people who waited on government programs. Ours is a nation founded upon the independent spirit of each individual.
We can make our own decisions. We can reap our rewards and suffer our consequences--in healthcare and other matters--just fine without you, Mr. Weiner. Finally, healthcare will not die without your magic finger. In fact, minus government’s manipulative hand, it will be much better and more readily available.
Here’s hoping that Mr. Weiner is correct about healthcare reform being dead. Here’s hoping, too, that America will tell congressmen like Weiner that we’re sick and tired of government meddling. We are not the whiners he believes us to be.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Doing “nothing” can be the best medicine
Question the wisdom or motives behind congressional legislation and you’ll get the predictable response: read the bill. Alright, let’s try to read Sen. Harry Reid’s healthcare bill, beginning with its 14-page Table of Contents.
There are nine separate Titles containing another 51 Subtitles and 23 additional Parts and Subparts. Underneath those various Parts, Subparts and Subtitles are 365 Sections and Subsections, one for each day in a year. The bill itself is 2074-pages long with each page containing 24 or 25 lines each, a total of nearly 51,000 lines. I won’t even guess at a word count.
Each line, Subtitle, Part, Subpart, Section and Subsection refers to others ad nauseam. In some instances, they reference separate articles of federal law, which must be just as confusing and unreadable as Reid’s healthcare “reform” proposal. Now, in order for us to believe we’re being properly represented we must accept that our Senators have read and understand this bill in its entirety. Sure, and you can see the Pacific Ocean from Lawrence, Kansas.
I’ll make no pretense about understanding this monstrosity. Furthermore, I don’t believe the four Senators whose names appear on the legislation understand it either. Further still, I think it was written that way on purpose.
First, Senators and Representatives need not understand their legislation; they will exempt themselves from it. Second, a bill understandable to them might also be understandable to us. And that isn’t how Washington operates. They prefer ambiguity and legalese that no one short of a Philadelphia lawyer can follow.
Even so, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) explained her vote to begin debate on this behemoth thusly, “It is clear to me that doing nothing is not an option.”
In fairness to Ms. Landrieu her procedural vote doesn’t mean she will support the legislation, and at least I can comprehend what she means. But I have to call her on the “doing nothing” part. Doing nothing can be the better alternative in a host of situations. Let’s examine a couple.
Let’s suppose you awaken in the middle of the night and notice an odd glow outside your window. Your neighbor’s garage is on fire. You call the fire department and, being a conscientious neighbor, out the door you go. The neighbor’s garden hose is close by, but the water isn’t working. Then you notice a gasoline container beside the shed in your neighbor’s back yard. Is it better for you to do nothing? Or, is it better for you to toss the gasoline on the fire?
Let’s try another one.
Black Friday just passed, so let’s assume you were out shopping. The aisles are packed with scrambling shoppers and howling kids. But one kid in particular gets your attention. This little boy just will not behave. He wants an X-box and will stop at nothing to get it.
His mother tries to assuage the situation with the typical “maybe Santa will bring it” line. But if that’s ever worked on a kid it’s news to me. His tantrum continues. Is it better for the mother to give the boy his way and instill in him the idea that his behavior is acceptable and profitable? Or, is it better for her to do nothing, thus letting the boy know that being a brat won’t serve his goal?
Am I exaggerating? Maybe a little. But both analogies illustrate that it can be far better to do nothing than to take actions that make bad situations worse, just for the sake of having “done something”.
Healthcare needs reform, just like the garage needs a fire department and the child needs a spanking. What healthcare doesn’t need is a “do something” fix that adds another layer of bureaucracy to an already bloated system. In regard to Reid’s bill, doing nothing is just what the doctor ordered.
There are nine separate Titles containing another 51 Subtitles and 23 additional Parts and Subparts. Underneath those various Parts, Subparts and Subtitles are 365 Sections and Subsections, one for each day in a year. The bill itself is 2074-pages long with each page containing 24 or 25 lines each, a total of nearly 51,000 lines. I won’t even guess at a word count.
Each line, Subtitle, Part, Subpart, Section and Subsection refers to others ad nauseam. In some instances, they reference separate articles of federal law, which must be just as confusing and unreadable as Reid’s healthcare “reform” proposal. Now, in order for us to believe we’re being properly represented we must accept that our Senators have read and understand this bill in its entirety. Sure, and you can see the Pacific Ocean from Lawrence, Kansas.
I’ll make no pretense about understanding this monstrosity. Furthermore, I don’t believe the four Senators whose names appear on the legislation understand it either. Further still, I think it was written that way on purpose.
First, Senators and Representatives need not understand their legislation; they will exempt themselves from it. Second, a bill understandable to them might also be understandable to us. And that isn’t how Washington operates. They prefer ambiguity and legalese that no one short of a Philadelphia lawyer can follow.
Even so, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) explained her vote to begin debate on this behemoth thusly, “It is clear to me that doing nothing is not an option.”
In fairness to Ms. Landrieu her procedural vote doesn’t mean she will support the legislation, and at least I can comprehend what she means. But I have to call her on the “doing nothing” part. Doing nothing can be the better alternative in a host of situations. Let’s examine a couple.
Let’s suppose you awaken in the middle of the night and notice an odd glow outside your window. Your neighbor’s garage is on fire. You call the fire department and, being a conscientious neighbor, out the door you go. The neighbor’s garden hose is close by, but the water isn’t working. Then you notice a gasoline container beside the shed in your neighbor’s back yard. Is it better for you to do nothing? Or, is it better for you to toss the gasoline on the fire?
Let’s try another one.
Black Friday just passed, so let’s assume you were out shopping. The aisles are packed with scrambling shoppers and howling kids. But one kid in particular gets your attention. This little boy just will not behave. He wants an X-box and will stop at nothing to get it.
His mother tries to assuage the situation with the typical “maybe Santa will bring it” line. But if that’s ever worked on a kid it’s news to me. His tantrum continues. Is it better for the mother to give the boy his way and instill in him the idea that his behavior is acceptable and profitable? Or, is it better for her to do nothing, thus letting the boy know that being a brat won’t serve his goal?
Am I exaggerating? Maybe a little. But both analogies illustrate that it can be far better to do nothing than to take actions that make bad situations worse, just for the sake of having “done something”.
Healthcare needs reform, just like the garage needs a fire department and the child needs a spanking. What healthcare doesn’t need is a “do something” fix that adds another layer of bureaucracy to an already bloated system. In regard to Reid’s bill, doing nothing is just what the doctor ordered.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Like any brothel, the Senate has its price
An old joke begins with a rich man in a limousine passing a pretty woman standing on the sidewalk. He tells the chauffeur to stop beside the woman and he lets his window down.
“As you can see,” he says to the woman, “I’m a wealthy man. Would you have sex with me for a million dollars?”
It’s a tempting offer. One million dollars; she’d be set for life. The woman considers the rich man’s proposal, smiles at him and agrees that she would indeed be willing to fulfill her end of the bargain. The man smiles back and asks if she would have sex with him for a hundred dollars. The woman’s smiling face transforms into an indignant frown.
“What kind of woman do you think I am?” she asks.
“We’ve established the kind of woman you are,” the rich man replies. “Now we’re haggling over the price.”
The rich man will have to come up with far more than a million dollars to buy Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA). I’m not saying that Sen. Landrieu would sell herself like the woman in the joke. But she will sell her vote, a vote for a bill with which she has issues, for a barrel of pork spending. In fact, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proposed at least $100 million of your money to buy Landrieu, and she’s not the least bit ashamed.
“I’m not going to be defensive,” Landrieu crowed to the Washington Post. “And it’s not a $100 million fix. It’s a $300 million dollar fix.”
No matter the price, it’s obvious that the fix is in. Thus there is little difference between Landrieu and the woman on the sidewalk. The woman in the joke was willing to compromise her morality when the price was right. Landrieu has misgivings about allowing the federal government to commandeer healthcare. Yet she is willing to compromise those principles for money. She has sold herself just as surely as any streetwalker.
I’m not the first person to make this comparison. Therefore, I won’t be the first to be tarred and feathered for the analogy. However, no one has refuted the charge to a worthwhile degree. Let’s go to the dictionary.
The usual definition for prostitute involves granting sexual favors in return for money. But a prostitute can also be someone who misuses or compromises their talent, ability, or position for financial gain. Isn’t that what Sen. Landrieu has done? She offered her ability, in this case a vote to move forward on the Senate’s healthcare “reform” plan, in exchange for federal funds earmarked for her state.
At least if she were walking the streets Harry Reid would have to use his own money to acquire her services. But since she’s a senator whose vote Reid needs, he can use our money to have his way with her. Just as in the joke, we have established the type of woman Mary Landrieu is; we are simply haggling over her price. And she drives a much harder bargain than our sidewalk lady.
Landrieu defenders will argue that this is just business as usual. It’s how politics works, Washington in its purest form. I don’t doubt that’s true. More is the pity. The nation’s future is being shaped by people who willingly sell their principles and their constituents to the highest bidder. Such people have no place representing a free and thinking population.
However, can we truly blame Sen. Landrieu for selling her vote to Harry Reid? Not really. Which do you think will sell better to her constituents come reelection time? Will she win favor for having stood on principle and voted her conscience? Or, will Louisianans more readily reward her for bringing home $300 million in pork? Sadly, I think the later.
“As you can see,” he says to the woman, “I’m a wealthy man. Would you have sex with me for a million dollars?”
It’s a tempting offer. One million dollars; she’d be set for life. The woman considers the rich man’s proposal, smiles at him and agrees that she would indeed be willing to fulfill her end of the bargain. The man smiles back and asks if she would have sex with him for a hundred dollars. The woman’s smiling face transforms into an indignant frown.
“What kind of woman do you think I am?” she asks.
“We’ve established the kind of woman you are,” the rich man replies. “Now we’re haggling over the price.”
The rich man will have to come up with far more than a million dollars to buy Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA). I’m not saying that Sen. Landrieu would sell herself like the woman in the joke. But she will sell her vote, a vote for a bill with which she has issues, for a barrel of pork spending. In fact, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proposed at least $100 million of your money to buy Landrieu, and she’s not the least bit ashamed.
“I’m not going to be defensive,” Landrieu crowed to the Washington Post. “And it’s not a $100 million fix. It’s a $300 million dollar fix.”
No matter the price, it’s obvious that the fix is in. Thus there is little difference between Landrieu and the woman on the sidewalk. The woman in the joke was willing to compromise her morality when the price was right. Landrieu has misgivings about allowing the federal government to commandeer healthcare. Yet she is willing to compromise those principles for money. She has sold herself just as surely as any streetwalker.
I’m not the first person to make this comparison. Therefore, I won’t be the first to be tarred and feathered for the analogy. However, no one has refuted the charge to a worthwhile degree. Let’s go to the dictionary.
The usual definition for prostitute involves granting sexual favors in return for money. But a prostitute can also be someone who misuses or compromises their talent, ability, or position for financial gain. Isn’t that what Sen. Landrieu has done? She offered her ability, in this case a vote to move forward on the Senate’s healthcare “reform” plan, in exchange for federal funds earmarked for her state.
At least if she were walking the streets Harry Reid would have to use his own money to acquire her services. But since she’s a senator whose vote Reid needs, he can use our money to have his way with her. Just as in the joke, we have established the type of woman Mary Landrieu is; we are simply haggling over her price. And she drives a much harder bargain than our sidewalk lady.
Landrieu defenders will argue that this is just business as usual. It’s how politics works, Washington in its purest form. I don’t doubt that’s true. More is the pity. The nation’s future is being shaped by people who willingly sell their principles and their constituents to the highest bidder. Such people have no place representing a free and thinking population.
However, can we truly blame Sen. Landrieu for selling her vote to Harry Reid? Not really. Which do you think will sell better to her constituents come reelection time? Will she win favor for having stood on principle and voted her conscience? Or, will Louisianans more readily reward her for bringing home $300 million in pork? Sadly, I think the later.
Friday, August 28, 2009
The Beltway Zone: where minds turn to mush
The beltway surrounding the nation’s capital must comprise some paranormal force capable of melting a person’s mind. Nearly all life that ventures inside loses memory, common sense and contact with reality.
Politicians forget their campaign pledges and how to reconcile financial accounts. Business leaders who become lawmakers forget the most basic principles of economics, like the implausibility of borrowing one’s way out of debt. The worst examples--or the most piteous--are journalists.
Once journalists join the beltway media they exit the atmosphere of planet Earth. Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne isn’t the only example; he just happens to be the latest.
Mr. Dionne has a problem with guns at healthcare forums, especially Obama’s. He wonders why conservatives excuse the gun-toting protesters at a black president’s appearance and what they might’ve said if leftists had brought guns to Reagan or Bush appearances.
First of all, the presence of guns--right or wrong--has nothing to do with race. People have brought guns to white representatives’ forums, too. It’s not just the president. Also, someone did bring a gun to a Reagan appearance. He was shot, if you’ll recall. Furthermore, there were movies and books about assassinating George W. Bush.
Drop the race-baiting, Mr. Dionne. It’s an empty argument and beneath the dignity of a serious commentator.
Another of his peeves is the “jackboot politics” that opponents of government healthcare employ. If you’re a vocal opponent of socialized medicine you’re part of an “angry minority engaging in intimidation.”
Mr. Dionne, your memory is short.
When Bill Clinton was president and his administration botched the Branch Davidian raid, federal agents were called “jackbooted thugs.” Leftists came unglued. They fully supported Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno, heaping scorn upon the “jackboot” comments. As for the “angry minority”, support for the plan to “reform” healthcare is trending downward. The “minority” you lament is actually a majority, one that’s weary of being ruled rather than represented.
Guns aren’t the basis of American liberty, Mr. Dionne argues. It is discussion, debate and free elections that produced our liberty; violence bypasses the rule of law.
Really? Try selling that notion to the Founding Fathers.
The Colonists presented the British Crown with petition after petition and grievance after grievance. All were rebuffed. The Declaration of Independence is the epitome of reasoned and rational argument. However, if I remember my history, King George ignored the Colonists’ complaints. Monarchal tyranny was halted only at the barrel of the Colonial gun.
Freedom doesn’t exist if mankind has no fundamental rights. It is the natural course of government to steal those rights one authoritarian necessity at a time. Without the ability to defend liberty our rights become privileges that can be granted or repealed at the ruler’s whim. Sorry, Mr. Dionne, but armed citizens are the basis of freedom, if freedom is to have meaning.
As for violence, it’s the totalitarian government’s favored tactic. The Romans made sport of killing Christians. Oppressing the rule of law and human liberty drove Nazi Germany to exterminate six million Jews. The Soviet Union was even worse. Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, the Viet Cong, Islamic revolutionaries, Castro, all have used force to suppress freedom.
Those rulers stripped people of all legitimate means for defending their rights. And if armed citizens make America appear “foolish and lawless” to the rest of the world, let’s remember that the majority the world’s governments are themselves authoritarian regimes of some sort. The idea of limited government and personal liberty often makes America look foolish to worldly tyrants.
Visions of a right-wing armed revolution are premature. We can peacefully overthrow our government at the ballot box. However, bearing arms against enemies both foreign and domestic is the cornerstone of liberty. Failing to recognize that fundamental truth proves that Mr. Dionne has been inside the Beltway Zone too long.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Swastikas, Nazis and congressional density
Are the Nazi symbols appearing at town halls meetings and congressional district offices a sign of racism? Representative David Scott (D-GA), whose district office was defaced with a swastika, thinks so.
"We have got to make sure that the symbol of the swastika does not win, that the racial hatred that's bubbling up does not win this debate," Scott told the Associated Press. He also claims to have received racially intimidating emails, some of which have called President Obama a Marxist.
Race-baiting is childish whether employed by a Klansman or a Congressman, such as Rep. Scott. But calling Obama a Marxist is something akin to calling apples, apples and oranges, oranges.
The Nazi symbolism has sparked outrage, but very little in the way of logical thought. There are several ways to look at this situation, each with its own degree of viability.
First case. Neo-Nazis could certainly capitalize on the current mood to express their warped and repugnant views. But before accepting the premise that opponents of socialized medicine are the racists that Rep. Scott claims, let’s remember who the Nazis were. The German Nazis were the National Socialist Party. They considered people and industry to be state property, subject to dictatorial whims.
No Mr. Scott. Opponents of healthcare reform aren’t trying to intimidate you with Nazi symbols. And they certainly aren’t promoting Nazism.
Second case. Mr. Scott is correct in identifying the heated arguments surrounding healthcare reform. That being the case, who’s to say that left-wing activists wouldn’t paint a Swastika on the Congressman’s sign, certain that the offense would be blamed on the opposition?
Leftists routinely likened Bush to Adolf Hitler. They called for his impeachment and execution, even writing books and making films about how to assassinate him. They toss unsubstantiated charges and labels—such as racist, sexist, homophobe, or xenophobe—at their opposition, attempting to discredit them without having to argue the facts. That is the heart of authoritarian dogma.
Now, is it impossible that people who utilize such tactics would paint a swastika on Congressman Scott’s sign? Not by a long shot. But it’s not a lead pipe cinch that the Left painted the symbol.
Frankly, opponents of government healthcare could’ve painted that swastika on Rep. Scott’s sign. But, if so, the intent wasn’t racial intimidation or promoting Nazism. He who has eyes let him see, and he who has a mind let him think.
Rep. Scott, how blind and dense can you be? If town hall protesters painted a swastika on your sign they did so not to promote Nazism but to call attention to the heavy-handed manner in which you and your colleagues are governing.
You and your party are promoting a healthcare plan that few of you have read. You and your party speak about the plan as if you’re familiar with every aspect. Yet when questions are raised you simply deny their viability, never offering reasons for why antagonists are wrong.
The President, a man of your party, claims to want a spirited debate over healthcare legislation. Yet when the debate turns spirited he dismisses or trashes legitimate questions about the bill’s language as misleading or false. His administration establishes a snitch line and encourages Americans to become White House spies.
Have people utilized Nazi symbolism to oppose nationalizing healthcare? No question. But if those people deface property, which isn’t a proper response, it’s not to promote racist ideas or Nazism itself.
Some Americans are just tired of federal diktat, Rep. Scott. Perhaps they’re letting you know that Washington’s actions are usurping private property, individual liberty, and our Constitution. Maybe they’re letting Congress know that they realize what’s happening and that they’re not pleased with the way Washington is exceeding its authority.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
An argument is missing in the healthcare debate
Since the House of Representatives unveiled its various versions of healthcare “reform” there have been myriad reasons given for why it shouldn’t become law.
Opponents have called attention to some rather ominous wording within the legislation. The “end of life” counseling sessions have sparked fear among seniors. Obama himself has said there are times when it’s better to take a pain killer than to treat an ailment, pointing out that such decisions are already being made.
He’s partially correct; such decisions are part of life.
Living wills convey a patient’s wishes in the event he or she is incapacitated. Resuscitation agreements provide instructions concerning life support. And yes, private insurers sometimes deny payment. But these examples aren’t synonymous with the Democrats’ arguments. In fact, they are apples and oranges.
These life decisions are largely a private matter, at least for now. Government isn’t involved; it has no say about what treatments are offered or when those treatments are deemed unwarranted. As for insurers, even when coverage is denied there remain charitable organizations to which a patient can turn.
Allowing government to become involved in individual life decisions is a dangerous precedent, even if it appears harmless at the outset.
That’s not the only argument. Opponents of “reform” point to wording that can end private health insurance, ration care, tax individuals and businesses that don’t carry “adequate” coverage, provide health insurance to illegal aliens and set wage controls for medical professionals.
All of this came to light as the President pushed Congress to rush healthcare legislation through at light speed, which is another reason to oppose its passage. Representatives both pro and con, and even President Obama, have admitted to never having read the legislation they’re so hot to pass.
Despite this dereliction of a representative’s fundamental duties, reformists have called the opposition everything from kooks to Nazis. It would be laughable if there weren’t so many empty minds soaking up this bilge hook, line and sinker.
Not even the people who write the gibberish that passes for legislation can explain what their bills say. The must call in lawyers, who must call in other lawyers, who then advise the impending bureaucracy on how to interpret the language and establish the rules. So, in all honesty, who can claim to know what “healthcare reform” means or how it will be applied?
But there’s one argument against healthcare reform that cannot be spun or disregarded. And it’s an argument that no legislator has shown the courage to make. Just where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to provide or manage healthcare?
All powers not constitutionally delegated to the federal government, or prohibited to the states, remain with the states and the people. Since the Constitution doesn’t allow the federal government to provide healthcare or insurance, anything passed and signed into law is invalid.
Sound radical? Take it up with Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky Resolutions, “whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”
I have yet to hear a single opponent summon the courage to challenge healthcare “reform” on constitutional grounds. Consider this a call to action, beginning with the representatives from my area.
Rep. Sue Myrick, Rep. Patrick McHenry, Senator Richard Burr and Senator Kay Hagan, heed your oath of office. Unless you want to publicly declare that your word is worthless you have no choice but to oppose this legislation.
Furthermore, you should demand expulsion for any colleague who votes for these “reform” measures. Such persons have violated their oath. They aren’t representatives enacting law; they are tyrants seizing illegitimate authority over the governed.
The Tenth Amendment hasn’t been repealed, much to the dismay of Congress. “Reform” opponents aren’t kooks, Nazis, racists, or lunatics. And there’s nothing subversive about holding our representative’s feet to the constitutional fire.
Opponents have called attention to some rather ominous wording within the legislation. The “end of life” counseling sessions have sparked fear among seniors. Obama himself has said there are times when it’s better to take a pain killer than to treat an ailment, pointing out that such decisions are already being made.
He’s partially correct; such decisions are part of life.
Living wills convey a patient’s wishes in the event he or she is incapacitated. Resuscitation agreements provide instructions concerning life support. And yes, private insurers sometimes deny payment. But these examples aren’t synonymous with the Democrats’ arguments. In fact, they are apples and oranges.
These life decisions are largely a private matter, at least for now. Government isn’t involved; it has no say about what treatments are offered or when those treatments are deemed unwarranted. As for insurers, even when coverage is denied there remain charitable organizations to which a patient can turn.
Allowing government to become involved in individual life decisions is a dangerous precedent, even if it appears harmless at the outset.
That’s not the only argument. Opponents of “reform” point to wording that can end private health insurance, ration care, tax individuals and businesses that don’t carry “adequate” coverage, provide health insurance to illegal aliens and set wage controls for medical professionals.
All of this came to light as the President pushed Congress to rush healthcare legislation through at light speed, which is another reason to oppose its passage. Representatives both pro and con, and even President Obama, have admitted to never having read the legislation they’re so hot to pass.
Despite this dereliction of a representative’s fundamental duties, reformists have called the opposition everything from kooks to Nazis. It would be laughable if there weren’t so many empty minds soaking up this bilge hook, line and sinker.
Not even the people who write the gibberish that passes for legislation can explain what their bills say. The must call in lawyers, who must call in other lawyers, who then advise the impending bureaucracy on how to interpret the language and establish the rules. So, in all honesty, who can claim to know what “healthcare reform” means or how it will be applied?
But there’s one argument against healthcare reform that cannot be spun or disregarded. And it’s an argument that no legislator has shown the courage to make. Just where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to provide or manage healthcare?
All powers not constitutionally delegated to the federal government, or prohibited to the states, remain with the states and the people. Since the Constitution doesn’t allow the federal government to provide healthcare or insurance, anything passed and signed into law is invalid.
Sound radical? Take it up with Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky Resolutions, “whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”
I have yet to hear a single opponent summon the courage to challenge healthcare “reform” on constitutional grounds. Consider this a call to action, beginning with the representatives from my area.
Rep. Sue Myrick, Rep. Patrick McHenry, Senator Richard Burr and Senator Kay Hagan, heed your oath of office. Unless you want to publicly declare that your word is worthless you have no choice but to oppose this legislation.
Furthermore, you should demand expulsion for any colleague who votes for these “reform” measures. Such persons have violated their oath. They aren’t representatives enacting law; they are tyrants seizing illegitimate authority over the governed.
The Tenth Amendment hasn’t been repealed, much to the dismay of Congress. “Reform” opponents aren’t kooks, Nazis, racists, or lunatics. And there’s nothing subversive about holding our representative’s feet to the constitutional fire.
Pitting Americans against their neighbors
Divide and conquer. It’s a strategy as old as human conflict. When one party can cause other parties to quarrel among themselves, victory is all but assured. President Obama is employing this strategy.
The White House has opened what can only be described as a snitch line. Americans who receive e-mail messages opposing healthcare “reform” should forward that message to the administration at once. What can the intent be other than to attain the email accounts, and subsequently the identities, of Americans who aren’t getting with the program?
There’s so much wrong here that it’s hard to know where to begin.
Stalin often referred to “useful idiots.” A useful idiot was someone easily manipulated into promoting the party line. Such a person became a tool of the state, functional for promoting an agenda and forcing the incompliant to accept the continued erosion of their liberty.
“Useful idiots” were useful because they were too scared, ignorant, or just plain stupid to realize how their actions trampled not only their liberty but that of their neighbors. When the “idiots” were no longer useful, they were either tossed aside or eliminated.
The Obama administration is asking you to become its “useful idiot.”
What happened to candidate Obama’s pledge to unite the country? It vanished, right along with the promise to end deficit spending and take the country in a new direction. The only “change” we’ve experienced is the increased proliferation of the collectivist state we’ve been inching toward for the better part of 75 years.
Asking Americans to spy on White House opponents is divisive to the core. Friends, we’re not talking about calling the authorities when a Muslim of Middle Eastern descent rushes through the airport carrying a keg of gunpowder and shouting “Allah be praised.” This is asking Americans to turn in their neighbors for disagreeing with government policy.
Obama’s snitch line legitimizes propaganda. Through the simple act of establishing an email account and encouraging tattling we’re being told that the government line is the only acceptable position. There’s no room for debate. When concerns are raised about the healthcare bill’s text the White House merely declares the fears unrealistic and moves on, never having addressed the public’s concerns at all.
Enlisting public assistance in compiling an enemies list based on opposition to policy has no place in a free society. Government is here to serve us. We are neither subject nor slave, but free citizens.
Such a request on the part of the White House, even if it’s never utilized, inhibits the free exchange of ideas. It is an assault on the First Amendment, in spirit if not in letter. How can anyone feel at ease airing opinions that oppose government actions if there exists the means for the State to use those opinions for political purposes?
“Well,” you counter, “what about the war protesters?”
What about them? Their right to oppose the war was never silenced. Their anger was misplaced, their actions misguided and their attitudes contrary to the preservation of our republic. But the Bush administration didn’t launch a “spy line” so Americans could tattle on their neighbor’s activities.
The Obama White House’s “domestic spying” program doesn’t enlist the people’s help in stopping the local Al-Qaeda cell from making bombs in a basement down the street. It’s not interested in intercepting phone calls between foreign nationals in the United States and caves in Tora Bora. The White House is blatantly encouraging its “useful idiots” to spy on their neighbors, and to turn in anyone who opposes the party line on “healthcare reform.”
It’s frightening to consider how many Americans will use this email link to do just that. Scarier still is how many will consider it the patriotic thing to do.
The White House has opened what can only be described as a snitch line. Americans who receive e-mail messages opposing healthcare “reform” should forward that message to the administration at once. What can the intent be other than to attain the email accounts, and subsequently the identities, of Americans who aren’t getting with the program?
There’s so much wrong here that it’s hard to know where to begin.
Stalin often referred to “useful idiots.” A useful idiot was someone easily manipulated into promoting the party line. Such a person became a tool of the state, functional for promoting an agenda and forcing the incompliant to accept the continued erosion of their liberty.
“Useful idiots” were useful because they were too scared, ignorant, or just plain stupid to realize how their actions trampled not only their liberty but that of their neighbors. When the “idiots” were no longer useful, they were either tossed aside or eliminated.
The Obama administration is asking you to become its “useful idiot.”
What happened to candidate Obama’s pledge to unite the country? It vanished, right along with the promise to end deficit spending and take the country in a new direction. The only “change” we’ve experienced is the increased proliferation of the collectivist state we’ve been inching toward for the better part of 75 years.
Asking Americans to spy on White House opponents is divisive to the core. Friends, we’re not talking about calling the authorities when a Muslim of Middle Eastern descent rushes through the airport carrying a keg of gunpowder and shouting “Allah be praised.” This is asking Americans to turn in their neighbors for disagreeing with government policy.
Obama’s snitch line legitimizes propaganda. Through the simple act of establishing an email account and encouraging tattling we’re being told that the government line is the only acceptable position. There’s no room for debate. When concerns are raised about the healthcare bill’s text the White House merely declares the fears unrealistic and moves on, never having addressed the public’s concerns at all.
Enlisting public assistance in compiling an enemies list based on opposition to policy has no place in a free society. Government is here to serve us. We are neither subject nor slave, but free citizens.
Such a request on the part of the White House, even if it’s never utilized, inhibits the free exchange of ideas. It is an assault on the First Amendment, in spirit if not in letter. How can anyone feel at ease airing opinions that oppose government actions if there exists the means for the State to use those opinions for political purposes?
“Well,” you counter, “what about the war protesters?”
What about them? Their right to oppose the war was never silenced. Their anger was misplaced, their actions misguided and their attitudes contrary to the preservation of our republic. But the Bush administration didn’t launch a “spy line” so Americans could tattle on their neighbor’s activities.
The Obama White House’s “domestic spying” program doesn’t enlist the people’s help in stopping the local Al-Qaeda cell from making bombs in a basement down the street. It’s not interested in intercepting phone calls between foreign nationals in the United States and caves in Tora Bora. The White House is blatantly encouraging its “useful idiots” to spy on their neighbors, and to turn in anyone who opposes the party line on “healthcare reform.”
It’s frightening to consider how many Americans will use this email link to do just that. Scarier still is how many will consider it the patriotic thing to do.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
ObamaCare: power, ego and control
So, Obama says healthcare reform isn’t about him and it isn’t about politics. It is about a healthcare system that is breaking families, businesses and the economy. At least that’s what he says.
It’s more factual to believe that record deficits, unchecked borrowing and printing dollars like pin-up pictures would have more to do with our sour economy than medical spending. And let’s not forget the mortgage meltdown brought on by the government mandated manipulation of lending practices. But I’m getting off subject.
Even the most avid supporter of Chavez’s northern brother must wonder how Obama can say such things with a straight face.
Of course healthcare reform—better described as socialized medicine—is about him. It was about him when he first mentioned it, it’s about him now and it will remain about him long after it has been decided one way or the other. It is about his power, his ego and his self-righteous attitude, an attitude that bestows upon him and his cronies both the intellect and the moral authority to decide who should be treated, when, how and for how long. It is about being the sole arbiter of life and death, the god-like power Obama so craves and from whence his aspirations arise.
If this weren’t the case he wouldn’t be pushing so hard to see this measure become law before the details become public. If this weren’t the case he wouldn’t have told opposition Blue Dog Democrats, “You’re destroying my presidency.” It is about him, him and an agenda that would make Vladimir Lenin swell with pride.
Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat who opposes the current healthcare proposal, doesn’t believe Obama made that statement to the Blue Dogs. Stupak said, “I can’t see him saying that. He’s got too much self-confidence.” But I think Rep. Stupak, like many Americans, just can’t believe a sitting president could be so sinister.
Obama’s persona isn’t one of self-confidence, Rep. Stupak. Self-confidence is virtuous. Arrogance is the more appropriate term for describing Obama’s drive for socialized medicine.
If this plan is so grand there’s no reason why the President himself shouldn’t participate. His lovely and gracious wife Michelle can select the “public option” when her next Pap smear is due. And President Obama should expose his children to the same “healthcare for everyone” that he and his ilk would so blithely impose upon, well, everyone else.
It’s only fair, isn’t it? But don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen.
Obama is promoting healthcare “reform” legislation that he hasn’t read and, for what it’s worth, is beyond the federal government’s constitutional duties. He is disregarding his oath of office, abridging his duty to his constituents and encouraging Congress to follow suit. Yet he accuses people who have read the proposal of lying about its contents.
Come to think of it, his actions extend beyond simple arrogance. Obama’s actions are tyranny in its purest form.
It’s more factual to believe that record deficits, unchecked borrowing and printing dollars like pin-up pictures would have more to do with our sour economy than medical spending. And let’s not forget the mortgage meltdown brought on by the government mandated manipulation of lending practices. But I’m getting off subject.
Even the most avid supporter of Chavez’s northern brother must wonder how Obama can say such things with a straight face.
Of course healthcare reform—better described as socialized medicine—is about him. It was about him when he first mentioned it, it’s about him now and it will remain about him long after it has been decided one way or the other. It is about his power, his ego and his self-righteous attitude, an attitude that bestows upon him and his cronies both the intellect and the moral authority to decide who should be treated, when, how and for how long. It is about being the sole arbiter of life and death, the god-like power Obama so craves and from whence his aspirations arise.
If this weren’t the case he wouldn’t be pushing so hard to see this measure become law before the details become public. If this weren’t the case he wouldn’t have told opposition Blue Dog Democrats, “You’re destroying my presidency.” It is about him, him and an agenda that would make Vladimir Lenin swell with pride.
Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat who opposes the current healthcare proposal, doesn’t believe Obama made that statement to the Blue Dogs. Stupak said, “I can’t see him saying that. He’s got too much self-confidence.” But I think Rep. Stupak, like many Americans, just can’t believe a sitting president could be so sinister.
Obama’s persona isn’t one of self-confidence, Rep. Stupak. Self-confidence is virtuous. Arrogance is the more appropriate term for describing Obama’s drive for socialized medicine.
If this plan is so grand there’s no reason why the President himself shouldn’t participate. His lovely and gracious wife Michelle can select the “public option” when her next Pap smear is due. And President Obama should expose his children to the same “healthcare for everyone” that he and his ilk would so blithely impose upon, well, everyone else.
It’s only fair, isn’t it? But don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen.
Obama is promoting healthcare “reform” legislation that he hasn’t read and, for what it’s worth, is beyond the federal government’s constitutional duties. He is disregarding his oath of office, abridging his duty to his constituents and encouraging Congress to follow suit. Yet he accuses people who have read the proposal of lying about its contents.
Come to think of it, his actions extend beyond simple arrogance. Obama’s actions are tyranny in its purest form.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
