As much as I dislike insurance companies, I dislike what I am hearing about Obama's health care plan even more.
As a Conservative, it disturbs me deeply whenever I hear of any government plan that essentially denies anyone their Constitutional right to liberty.
Obama's health care plan will virtually outlaw insurance companies.
Additionally, it will force Americans into a Government run health care system whether they would personally choose such a system for themselves and their families or not.
This, as I say, is blatantly unconstitutional.
This is a perfect example of the classic Liberal notion that we American citizens are too stupid to know what's best for us, so the Government must make that decision for us.
I have mentioned my dislike for insurance companies before, but even I would not think of denying them the right to exist.
I don't even like the government requiring me to buy car insurance under penalty of law, so one can imagine how opposed I would be to any kind of national health insurance.
It's not that I don't think auto insurance is a necessity. I do, but mandating the purchase of it, in my opinion, violates basic human rights outlined in the Constitution of the United States.
I could do a whole blog post on the subject. In fact, I have. And here, also.
And so, I admit I have mixed feelings about this health care plan. On the one hand, I would personally like access to free health care. And, I'm not so sure Obama's plan wouldn't work, even though efforts to implement such plans have always failed when attempted elsewhere. Perhaps those who engineered the plan for him have managed to perfect the system, although, if Obama's history of choosing incompetent advisors and aides is any indication, they haven't.
Anyone who thinks I am wrong about his plan to outlaw private insurance, take notice. As early as page 16 of the health care bill now being debated, is this paragraph:
Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
That's legislature speak for: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
The linked article goes on to say:
The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."
What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.
Stepping away from my own self interest, I have to say:
No one, not even Government, has the right to take away any free market business' right to operate their business as they see fit.
Stepping back to my self interest, I don't want anyone, not even the government, telling me how I should choose to spend my health care dollar.
They don't even have the right to deny me my right to be stupid, if I want to be stupid. I reserve the right to refuse health care. If I want to suffer and die without ever seeing any medical professional, that is my Constitutional right.
This isn't about whether we have a right to health care or not, which, by the way, we don't.
It's about our inherent and constitutional right to choose how we want to live our individual lives.
Then, there is the point about the natural consequences of free health care for all, which I mentioned in a recent post:
Crowded waiting rooms and long waits for treatment, among other things. Not to mention the increased likelihood of misdiagnosis, due to rushing through examinations because of time constraints on the medical professionals.
More patients, less time to be thorough.
Personally, I am quite healthy, although I have some health issues with which I will eventually have to deal. Some day, I will need immediate health care.
Right now, I can wait for medical examinations. I don't have an immediate need for any prescriptions. I will not suddenly drop dead for lack of immediate health care. Knock wood.
Many people, notably senior citizens, don't have that option. They need care immediately.
Then, there's this, from Obama's own black heart:
Did you hear and understand what Obama said in this video? "Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe, you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain killers."
He wants the government to decide who lives and dies.
Is this what you want for your grandparents? Is this what you want for yourself should you reach the point when Obama determines you have outlived your usefulness?
Obama has made it clear that he believes senior citizens, and those younger people with terminal diseases are, due to their advanced age and stages, past the point of saving. Therefore, he has suggested the government will save some money by simply not treating the aged and infirmed, except to dull the pain with pain killing drugs.
In other words, he believes saving the lives of some people isn't worth the cost and effort needed to do so.
Euthanasia is just around the corner. How could it not be?
He has yet to specify at what age we officially outlive our usefulness to society, but I'm sure eventually, once his plan is adopted into law, he will make his wishes known on that subject.
But, as I said, that doesn't specifically concern me personally. Yet. But, I'm not getting any younger.
But that leads me to ask, "What's next?" Eliminate the mentally challenged? How about those with Down's Syndrome? Is Sarah Palin's baby in danger?
Will Obama make "Welcome to the Monkey House", and "Soylent Green" a reality?
We already know he plans to grant late term abortion rights, on demand, to anyone who feels the least bit inconvenienced by an unexpected, and/or unwanted baby.
What were his words? Oh yes. "Punished with a baby".
Now, it seems simply being old or chronically sick will be justification enough for these Mengele-worthy "progressive" changes.
OK. Those are just a couple of thoughts I have about Obamacare.
But, what all this boils down to, whether the information we have about it so far is accurate or not, is this:
This is undoubtedly an unprecedented reach for power and control on the part of Obama.
It really isn't about a "failing health care system". It really isn't about "leveling the playing field". It isn't even about making sure all Americans have affordable health care.
Obama and his lackeys in Congress don't really care about Americans health or ability to pay for health care.
It is really all about a Marxist control of Government which will ultimately lead to the destruction of a free America.
22 comments:
God Help us all.
I'd love to say something erudite and true and additional to your post, but you have SAID IT ALL, Brother!
I hate our insurance, it's costly and our deductible is ridiculously high, but DO NOT take it from me!! It's OURS! Anybody who thinks it's not a HUGE LIE to say "you can keep your insurance" is NUTS....as if Blue Shield will be around when everybody's left and isn't paying premiums? Then where will I BE, right? dayum
As a guy who works for one, I can affirm that insurance companies are no better or worse than any other type of company subject to the forces of market competition. The essential problem with Obamacare is that insurers would be forced to compete with the federal government, which, of course, will not be constrained by those market forces. Thus, contrary to Obama's campaign promises, you won't be able to keep your own health insurance if you're happy with it, because your private insurer will cease to exist.
"Except as provided in this paragraph"
Hmmm, don't you think that's a pretty important clause in your citation and provides a pretty wide open door? What is "provided in this paragraph?" You don't include that.
So how can you say that insurance companies won't be able to write anymore policies. Could be they can write as many as they want if they conform to what's "provided in this paragraph", like not being able to deny people coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Regarding car insurance, I'm sure you are absolutely free to NOT by car insurance. You are simply not allowed to drive a car without it. Driving is not a right, it is a privilege-a privilege contingent on certain requirements, like age, passing a test and carrying insurance to protect you and your fellow citizens. Requiring you to meet requirements to gain a privilege is not unconstitutional.
Liberal Jim, you ask, "Hmmm, don't you think that's a pretty important clause in your citation and provides a pretty wide open door?"
No, I don't. I think what's important here is Obama's blatant power grab.
My point is this: Government has no right--repeat---no right to meddles with any private business, and even less right to meddle with my right to decide what I think is best for me and my family.
And you know what? If Government stays out of my business, and I fall flat or die or worse because I make foolish decisions, I will suck it up and deal with the consequences, myself. If Obama stays out of my private business, I promise not to blame Obama for the mess I get myself in.
If Obama meddles, I will certainly blame him for the mess he created, as I should. And I do.
That, Liberal Jim, is the point.
We do have problems with our present health care system, but they are nothing compared to the ones we will have with Obama Care. I have no problem with him wanting to provide health care insurance to the needy, but he doesn't have to take over the whole health care system to do it. Secondly, it is not the taxpayers responsibility to provide health care to illegal immigrants, which is what he would like to do.
Third, even if he does provide health care to the needy, that does not give him or anyone else in the government to dictate what kind of treatment or much treatment one should get, he is NOT God.
Fourth, Obama has no right, constitutionally or otherwise to force the private health insurers out of business, which he also wants to do with the coal companies under Cap and Trade.
Obama needs to be brought down a peg or two, he is just too full of himself.
"Government has no right--repeat---no right to meddles with any private business"
Really? No right to make sure your food is safe? No right to make sure your medications are safe and effective? No right to make sure your car's gas tank doesn't blow up, your electrical wiring doesn't burn your house down? Trucks on the highway don't slam into the back of your car? Pig excrement doesn't flood your back yard? Hexavalent chromium doesn't poison your water supply?
You really should try reading the Constitution, including the preamble, before you go talk about things you apparently no little or nothing about.
Jim, to answer your question, NO,THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MEDDLE IN THE AFFAIRS OF PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Perhaps you are the one who needs to read the Constitution. The federal government has usurped powers never granted to it by the Constitution and they have over stepped their bounds when it comes to interfering in our private lives and in our businesses.
And just for you edification, almost all federal laws passed since 1913 are blatantly unconstitutional. I could explain why, but I do not have the time, and I doubt you would believe me any way.
I knew some Libnut would try to make that point.
Jim, try to follow. The Government has the responsibility to protect the security and safety of the population.
The Federal Government has no right to force legitimate, lawful, private companies out of business, or even to force private legal companies to make policy changes that adversely effect them and their consumers.
And, the Federal government has no right to force me to make decisions regarding my own personal welfare, unless my decision directly adversely affects the life, liberty, and property of others.
These truths are self evident, as the Declaration declares.
Another thing that is self evident. Some people would follow Obama, even if he leads them off a cliff. I do not understand why people are so willing to surrender their own personal freedom, that they will defend the oppressor.
Please read my tomorrow's post(7/23/09).
President BO is the most dangerous man since Adolf Hitler.
I say that meaningfully, deliberately and after much thought and comparison.
This is just SO scary!
Jim: You are just plain WRONG and need to read the paragraph you seem to think absolves the bill from its troublesome nature.
Joe, show me the paragraph and I'll read it. Have you read it?
Rev: "almost all federal laws passed since 1913 are blatantly unconstitutional."
OK, I see where you are coming from. But why are you living in this country then?
Mark: "I do not understand why people are so willing to surrender their own personal freedom, that they will defend the oppressor."
Funny, you didn't say that from 2001 to 2008. In fact you apparently were perfectly willing to surrender your Constitutional rights and protections.
And I for one would not follow Obama off a cliff. I don't know anyone who would. Your assumption that people who support the President much of the time are blind worshippers is simply way off the mark. But it's no surprise coming from you. I guess you assume we feel the same about Obama that you did about Bush.
Jim, that was such a stupid comment I won't even dignify it with a response.
Nice duck, Mark.
OK, Liberal Jim, I'll respond, although you know why I don't want to bother. I was as critical of Bush when he did something I disagreed with as I am of Obama.
I thought he spent too much, and I said so. I thought he was wrong on the Dubai ports thing, and I said so.
I am never willing to surrender my rights, not under Obama and not under any other President.
Now that you know I'm not disingenuous, why don't you acknowledge that this man you continue to blindly defend is indefensible, and that you were duped, like millions of other good Americans, into voting for this Marxist?
It's OK, Jim. People make mistakes. There's no harm in admitting you were fooled.
Sure you criticized Bush, but you've ducked my point about surrendering personal freedom from 2001-2008. Did you criticize the weakening of habeas corpus and the 4th amendment? Did you criticize warrentless wiretapping?
I don't blindly follow Obama. I don't worship him. I think he is trying too hard to create some sort of bi-partisan shangri-la in Washington. That is what the "Audacity of Hope" was all about.
It's not going to work because the Republicans want nothing more than to destroy Obama and any idea he has to help the country. Because they don't care about the country; they only care about regaining power.
I think Obama should have gone for more stimulus spending and less tax cuts. I think he should forget about the Republicans and go for a robust public health care system. There are a lot of things I think he should do differently.
But he's only been president for 6 months, so I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
"Bi-patisan"? BI-PARTISAN???
What are you talking about? No one---repeat----NO ONE--- is more divisive than Obama!!!
For example: Why does he continually blame the Bush administration for the economy?
6 months into his administration and he is still claiming he inherited this economy. Not so. He has quadrupled the National debt! Bush didn't do that!
The Democrat controlled Congress are the ones that got us into this mess, and Obama has only succeeded in making it worse!
You really are a sheep.
"Willing to give him the benefit of the doubt?"
You better look again. There no longer is any doubt that this man is a Marxist, and that he is leading America down the path to third world status.
Observations:
1) We don't have "Constitutional Rights". We have "Constitutionally Protected Rights". I know my version is wordier than yours... but the fact is that if tomorrow a bunch of liberals and wackos got elected to the Congress (I know, I repeat myself) and passed an Amendment to the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment... it would not reduce your right one iota to keep and bear arms in defense of your life, liberty or property. The right is naturally occuring, and not because a bunch of people voted on it and 51% agreed.
2)"Free Healthcare" isn't free. Like any and all other "gifts" from the Gub'mint, it will eventually be paid for by someone... likely with our tax dollars (income, sales, inflation, etc.) or that of our children and grandchildren.
Just my $.02
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for it, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give anything to anybody that the government does not first take from someone else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they worked for, then, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.
--Abraham Lincoln
Ben, you're an interesting addition!
"The right is naturally occuring". Really? Where do you find that? Bible? I'd love to read it.
And the Congress passing an amendment stuff? Have you actually read the Constitution?
Ben, welcome. You make very good points.
For the record, we don't have a health care system here in America. We have the free market system, which medical professionals have made use of for over 230 years, and Obama is systematically trying to destroy it with his bail-outs, taking control of private business, and tax increases.
This is all about Obama's insane power grab. He couldn't care less whether people have health care or not, as long as he isn't one of those people.
Post a Comment