Tuesday, July 28, 2009

In care you are wondering, no. I am not going to stop screaming about this behemoth mistake that Obama is trying to force on this country. The disastrous health care reform bill - that no Democrat feels it necessary to read - stands ready to destroy one of the most wonderful aspects of our freedom and nation.

So whatever I can do in my little corner of the world, I am doing.

Here is a terrific commentary by Dennis Prager, a man I feel is the preeminent leader in the study and understanding of Judeo-Christian beliefs. If you really don't know why (or how) Obama's plan is so dangerous, I urge you to spend just a few minutes and read it in its entirety:

10 Questions for Supporters of ‘ObamaCare’ (JWR)

1. President Barack Obama repeatedly tells us that one reason national health care is needed is that we can no longer afford to pay for Medicare and Medicaid. But if Medicare and Medicaid are fiscally insolvent and gradually bankrupting our society, why is a government takeover of medical care for the rest of society a good idea? What large-scale government program has not eventually spiraled out of control, let alone stayed within its projected budget? Why should anyone believe that nationalizing health care would create the first major government program to "pay for itself," let alone get smaller rather than larger over time? Why not simply see how the Democrats can reform Medicare and Medicaid before nationalizing much of the rest of health care?

2. President Obama reiterated this past week that "no insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition." This is an oft-repeated goal of the president's and the Democrats' health care plan. But if any individual can buy health insurance at any time, why would anyone buy health insurance while healthy? Why would I not simply wait until I got sick or injured to buy the insurance? If auto insurance were purchasable once one got into an accident, why would anyone purchase auto insurance before an accident? Will the Democrats next demand that life insurance companies sell life insurance to the terminally ill? The whole point of insurance is that the healthy buy it and thereby provide the funds to pay for the sick. Demanding that insurance companies provide insurance to everyone at any time spells the end of the concept of insurance. And if the answer is that the government will now make it illegal not to buy insurance, how will that be enforced? How will the government check on 300 million people?

3. Why do supporters of nationalized medicine so often substitute the word "care" for the word "insurance?" it is patently untrue that millions of Americans do not receive health care. Millions of Americans do not have health insurance but virtually every American (and non-American on American soil) receives health care.

4. No one denies that in order to come close to staying within its budget health care will be rationed. But what is the moral justification of having the state decide what medical care to ration?

5. According to Dr. David Gratzer, health care specialist at the Manhattan Institute, "While 20 years ago pharmaceuticals were largely developed in Europe, European price controls made drug development an American enterprise. Fifteen of the 20 top-selling drugs worldwide this year were birthed in the United States." Given how many lives -- in America and throughout the world - American pharmaceutical companies save, and given how expensive it is to develop any new drug, will the price controls on drugs envisaged in the Democrats' bill improve or impair Americans' health?

6. Do you really believe that private insurance could survive a "public option"? Or is this really a cover for the ideal of single-payer medical care? How could a private insurance company survive a "public option" given that private companies have to show a profit and government agencies do not have to - and given that a private enterprise must raise its own money to be solvent and a government option has access to others' money -- i.e., taxes? 7. Why will hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies do nearly as superb a job as they now do if their reimbursement from the government will be severely cut? Haven't the laws of human behavior and common sense been repealed here in arguing that while doctors, hospitals and drug companies will make significantly less money they will continue to provide the same level of uniquely excellent care?

8. Given how many needless procedures are ordered to avoid medical lawsuits and how much money doctors spend on medical malpractice insurance, shouldn't any meaningful "reform" of health care provide some remedy for frivolous malpractice lawsuits?

9. Given how weak the U.S. economy is, given how weak the U.S. dollar is, and given how much in debt the U.S. is in, why would anyone seek to have the U.S. spend another trillion dollars? Even if all the other questions here had legitimate answers, wouldn't the state of the U.S. economy alone argue against national health care at this time?

10. Contrary to the assertion of President Obama -- "we spend much more on health care than any other nation but aren't any healthier for it" -- we are healthier. We wait far less time for procedures and surgeries. Our life expectancy with virtually any major disease is longer. And if you do not count deaths from violent crime and automobile accidents, we also have the longest life expectancy. Do you think a government takeover of American medicine will enable this medical excellence to continue?

This bill MUST be defeated. I know that the thinking goes that if it goes down in flames, then the Obama Presidency goes down with it. While I wish that were true, I don't buy it. After all, universal health care was the signature plan for Bill Clinton. It was so vital to his campaign that once he won, he gave the task of putting it together to Hillary.

But it turned out to be a dismal failure. Yet, Clinton went on to not only remain quite popular, he defeated his opponent solidly in his reelection bid.

Obama's approval ratings are finally dwindling and they are for good reason. He has down exactly the opposite of what he promised to do in many aspects of his campaign. He promised transparency - he hasn't done it. He promised post-racial harmony - judging from his terrible gaffe the other day in regards to the Cambridge police department, as well as Eric Holder's stunning refusal to prosecute the the young black thugs who gathered at a voting site in Philadelphia, with menacing clubs, in blatant violation of federal laws against intimidating voters. This, in addition to Holder's racial-charged comment that America is "a nation of cowards" for not dialoguing about race.

For whatever reason, the media refused to correlate the fact that Obama did spend 20 years listening to the race-baiting words of Jeremiah Wright. Why the Liberals refuse to accept that as anything other than acceptable is one of the great mysteries of our age. I mean, really. If it were discovered that George Bush spent 20 years listening to the racist rantings of David Duke every Sunday, do you really think the media would find that acceptable???

Obama's history - both recent and past - have shown a very disturbing pattern of blatant racism, anti-Americanism and anti-Capitalism. How can ANYONE believe his plans on health reform are anything other that an attempt to further control the lives of Americans?

I will remind you again - YES, IT CAN HAPPEN HERE! And it will if we sit by and let it. Call your Congressmen, your Senators - hell, call your news stations - go to a Tea Party rally, make your voice heard! This health care plan must be defeated.

If - as a matter of fact - it brings us closer to the defeat of those who are ashamed of the goodness of America - then so be it. It's time to stop walking to the ovens, people.

No comments: