“DAD” decided to respond, sort of. I never doubted his sincerity about believing all Americans should have health care, but he seems to think that an erudite response to questioning the authority to rob other Americans to pay for it is to attack the faith of the questioner.
“This is what we face, my fellow conservatives. The seductive, easy belief that health care is a right, and the government should and will be able to effectively and efficiently provide it for all, despite the graft, waste and correction practically written into the bill currently making the rounds. And these talking points are so easy. The Obamazombies will be able to effortlessly mouth them in the face of all manner of fact and logic to the contrary. Still, if you love this country, then it is a fight worth waging, because what Obamaand the Congress are proposing is certain death for countless numbers of Americans, and even greater involuntary servitude for the entire nation. ——————”————————————————————–”
True when I typed it last night, true today, and true tomorrow.
Wow, I am honored that my blog entry #49 has caught the attention of some conservatives. It is amusing to read that my”gems” are easy to dispute and ridiculous. And yet, they spent so much of their blog dedicated to thinking about it, attempting to discredit it, and promoting it. I am very grateful for all the attention. And I’m grateful he provided me with more information to respond to.
A post hardly consists of “most of my blog”, DAD. Between here and the blogcradle at Blogsnot, I have been doing this for three years, so perhaps you should let just a wee bit of air out of your head before you start banging it on doorframes. There was no “attempt to discredit your assertions”, they werediscredited, and rather than attempt to rehabilitate the naked assertions you made, you instead implied that I was for the government “bailing out” [purchasing public companies with my tax dollars] “financial institutions” and the car companies when anyone who reads my blog or my comments at various places around the internets KNOWS I am for no such thing. You then pontificated on the Fist-Bumper-In-Chief’s mythical actions of “identifying problems, addressing them openly with the American people, and striving for mutually workable solutions”, then top it off with an implication that the last administration avoided problems. How any of that dissembling falderal actually answered the pwning of your baseless assertions in support of healthcare is beyond me.
He’s right I do believe health care is a right for all. And I believe like the government should offer a single payer health plan so that everyone in this country can have access to health care when they need it.
Again, I didn’t ever doubt it that you believe that it is a right. I just happen to know you’re wrong. You see, even if I didn’t have the degree in Political Science, the Law Degree, or the Master of Laws, I can still read. The beauty of the Constitution is that it does a very good job of laying out what Government’s responsibilities are. “Provide insurance so that every citizen of the country can have access to health care when they need it” is not in there. Seriously. Not anywhere.
These conservatives waste all their energy trying to distract from the essential issue. Will there be graft, corruption, and kick backs? Yes. Is there presently kick backs? Yes. Ask your doctor, how many pharmaceutical vendors provide fees for them to endorse or use their products. Ask med students of the last 10 years, how many lunches were given to them by pharmaceutical companies. These points are just distractions.
Distractions like commenting about the government take over of public companies in response to a thread about healthcare. The discussion of the graft, corruption, and waste damn near written into the bill that would attach these shackles to Americans is merely pointing out some of the myriad of reasons why we don’t need to be handing whiskey and car keys to teenaged boys.
What conservatives fail to point out is whenever they are given free reign to be in charge, they don’t know what to do, so they abuse the privelages. Doubt me-ie, Bernie Madoff, GM, Mortgage Industry, Spiraling Healthcare costs, and on and on. Part of governments job is to provide some limits because as these examples show, when there are no limits, then self serving, greedy, narcissitic scumbags screw it up and ruin it for everyone.
Do your fingers always type at full speed while your brain is in neutral? Bernie Madoff happened because regulators didn’t do their job and because a lot of wealthy people foolishly believed that they were part of an exclusive group that could enjoy returns at rates that the rest of us wouldn’t even dare dream of. GM is the story of how the one-two punch of government’s misguided belief that it could legislate scientific advancement, despite the fact that the finished product that complies with onerous regulation is not what the customer wants to buy, and the intransigence of the United Autoworker’s Union and their stubborn refusal to make the concessions necessary to allow the company to continue as an even semi-competitive nature. I grew up in Flint. I saw this time and again for the first 29 years of my life. The mortgage industry? Don’t make me laugh. You read Nice Deb. She has very thorough posts with the C-SPAN footage of Chris Dodd, Bwaney Fwanks, and Franklin Raines insisting that there is no problem. She has links to the newspaper articles (yes plural) where Bush, who wasn’t a great president, raised concerns about the sub-prime loans and FANNIE and FREDDIE’s exposure. And the legislation that helped make it possible, the Community Reinvestment Act? That was passed on Carter’s watch. “Spiraling Health Care Costs?” I agree, they have been rising at a precipitous rate. Of course, the facts such as charging insured patients rates that are an attempt to recoup what they lose treating everyone else, that might be one thing. Government intervention won’t solve this. Price controls never do. But I suppose I should thank you for at least paying lip service to the topic at hand in that paragraph.
“Still, if you love this country, then it is a fight worth waging.” Again I’m struck by the simplistic thinking. So you can only love this country if you have conservative values. The other overly limited concept is if you believe in health care for all, then you are a socialist. It appears it is not possible to believe in healthcare for all, and enjoy freedom and financial prosperity.
It really is very simple. When government undertakes to do a thing, it needs to have the authority to do so. That authority must first be rooted in the Constitution. Providing health care for all is not. Period. As for believing in healthcare for all and enjoying freedom and financial prosperity, the proposal on the table does not support it. How do I know this? Simple. I have looked at the spending that the spendulous bill contains…more in less than 5 months than all the other administrations combined. Then the CBO’s numbers on the projected costs of the Kennedy-Dodd Bill, numbers so staggering that the President has instead decided to rely on numbers generated inside the White House. Conservative estimates peg this at almost 2 Trillion dollars in the next 10 years. That works out to roughly $62,000 dollars a piece on the 16 million or so that the government is actually likely to cover with this boondoggle. That’s more than I’ll pay to cover my family of four on our private insurance for the next ten years, even if I were to double the rate of increase over the last ten years and apply it to the next ten, and more importantly, it doesn’t even speak to the waste, and graft that will necessary accompany the government’s attachment to money that doesn’t belong to it. When we aren’t even going to be able to pay interest on the borrowing necessary to finish fleshing out the abomination that spendulous is, adding that kind of burden is such an egregious act of generational theft that no one outside of Congress or the White House who has looked all the terrible facts squarely in eye can begin to believe that the two concepts you stubbornly insist go together are not mutually exclusive concepts.
What about all these high minded Christian values? What you deem socialist might be considered a good Christian ethic. Do unto others as you would have them do to you. Help the Poor and the less fortunate. I may have choices that 47 million Americans don’t have because financial hardship, poverty, mental illness, or the simple fact that no insurance company wants someone with a previous medical condition. So the fact that I am willing to sacrifice my freedom to have any insurance I want to insure that millions of people receive care would seem like the Christian decision to make.
Very good. I give you points for eschewing one of the Left’s favorite indictments against Christians, “Hypocrite!!!” , opting instead to imply it. However, your statement is only meaningful if you rely on certain assumptions, like as a Christian I do not already give to those in need, that the gifts we are admonished to give are somehow satisfied in the manner you prescribe, that all pre-existing conditions automatically and permanently invalidate coverage by private insurance in every single case, which is not true, or that my ‘giving’ should be dictated by your desires. Let’s examine these a bit more closely, shall we?
As a Christian, I already give money through my church, which in turn, pools it with gifts from other congregants and then makes gifts according to the decisions made by my local church leaders. Understanding their roles as stewards of those funds, they carefully examine potential donees to insure that their practices also make sure as much of the money as is possible is actually used to help the people who need it, not those administering it. Being a small chain of hands that the money goes through, I can rest assured that there is both accountability to me for how my church spends it, and accountability to my church in how it is spent. I don’t get the benefit of accountability in how the government spends my money. There are numerous examples of how Congress members have stated on the record how they don’t believe my money belongs to me anyway. In addition, the Bible specifically states “Each man should give what he has in his heart decided to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” 2 Corinthians 9:7, NIV. Taxes are not a gift. And although the U.S. Treasury maintains that our tax payment is voluntary, you need only not pay for a few years and you will find that the government does indeed compelyou to pay your taxes. How does government fund anything it does? By taxes. As a thinking person, I can recognize that government would not be able to perform the functions it is specifcally allowed to do by the Constitution, and I accept that as necessary, but under no current definitions of the words could my tax payments be considered to be a gift, made not reluctantly or under compulsion. Further, if you review our history, Christian communities within this country such as the Puritans and the Quakers did not advocate that all should pay to subsidize health care for those in their communities. I know that the left likes to preach that Christianity requires wealth redistribution to take care of not only those who cannot take care of themselves, but also those who will not. I am familiar with liberation theology. The only way that works is taxation. And the taxation necessary to pay for everything for everyone eventually comes at gunpoint. That is stealing, and the last I looked, God takes a fairly dim view of it. In fact, I believe his caution against it was a ‘landmark moment’. If your christianity is settled with the idea that you get to decide for me what ‘gift’ I make and the manner in which it is given is appropriate, then I suggest serious contemplation of this: “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principals of the world, rather than Christ.” Colossians 2:8, NIV, followed by a rigorous re-reading of the entire book.
As for coverage of pre-existing conditions by insurance companies, it is true that in some cases some conditions will never be covered. Others are covered after a waiting period. The details are typically a combination of state law and business decisions made by insurance companies. If they agreed to cover certain perexisting conditions, they would not be using the premiums paid by others for service in a responsible fashion, and they would be making bad decisions, much like the banks giving out mortgages to people who couldn’t pay them that you were so earnestly carping about earlier. You might at least make an attempt at consistency, but that would require you to temper your emotions with reason, and that simply won’t do for a true believer in Obama.
Unfortunately Conservatives seem to pick and choose when it is Ok to be Christian.
I already answered your veiled charge of hypocrisy above. You can peddle that elsewhere. We ain’t buyin’ here.
It’s Christian to oppose abortion because it is the same as killing the baby.
No, it isn’t “the same as killing the baby”, it is the willful slaughter of an innocent human being. When women start giving birth to fishes, or kittens, or birds, then I might be willing to have a conversation with you about identification of the child as anything other than a child, and the act of snuffing it out as anything other than murder.
But if adults die because they don’t have health insurance and are denied access to care or medication, that is somehow Ok?
A facetious and fallacious analogy. Emergency rooms are not allowed to refuse treatment on the basis of ability to pay. That particular pickle means that we not only already pay for the medical care of our indigent, but of the citizens of other nations as well. Ask any ER doc in Texas, Arizona, California, etc. Secondly, some people refuse help, even help in the form of treatment. The mentally ill you were wringing your hands over earlier? You might find some who were denied care by overburdened state-run facilities. You will also find those who walked away from treatment. Adults make decisions. Decisions are the ultimate harbinger of consequences. Do they lead to sad and tragic results? Absolutely. But adults have something that the victims of abortion NEVER have. The opportunity to make choices. I believe that you are sincere in wanting everyone to have access to medical care. However, there are other options available that do not entail giving more money and power to people who have repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot use either wisely. Give locally. Work to fund clinics that provide free or low cost care to people. Start a foundation. All will yield positive results. None require further mortgaging my children’s future to feed the biggest hog at the trough, the Federal Government. Your noble intentions do not support a fundamental change in what this nation is to what you believe it should be. Again, that is theft. Theft of my birthright, of my childrens’ birthright, and my childrens’ childrens’ birthright. If you want to live in a country where there is universal healthcare, there is no reason for you to tary in our company, and you need not travel far. You can head to the North. I interned in the Canadian House of Commons in 1993. I know that all that glitters is not gold, and that even with universal care, people die there for want of care or medications. The same is true in Britain. If this ponzi scheme is forced upon us, it will be resisted.
If they want a fight, I hope the President gives the conservatives one. He has proven he can defeat the conservatives and will again…and again…and again.
The President didn’t run against a conservative…therefore he did not defeat any. What he has proven is that a largely undistinguished (except for his firm support of denying babies who survived their Mother’s attempts to murder them to die alone, without even basic comfort care, the touch of another human being with the compassion to let them know that they are people and the accordance of that simple and basic dignity) Senator, who remains largely a cypher to this day, who has friends who are admitted Terrorists who set out to kill and maim other Americans, who has announced the belief that government should provide for people, rather than the traditional and tested notion that people should provide for themselves, can appeal to white guilt, is ashamed of this country, which has no reason to apologize to any other nation, and has ties to groups that keep getting indicted for all manner of election fraud, can give a series of speeches delivered in a manner that implies empathy and serious contemplation, while saying very little at all can manage to sucker 52% of the people into voting for him. I don’t think his pat answers, populated with words like “sacrifice” and “unsustainable” will carry him as far in the next election, when the burden of high taxes, double-digit unemployment, and triple-digit inflation weighs heavily on John Q. Citizen’s brow. Care to make a wager?