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.
And 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.
I'm gonna ignore the fear mongering and conspiracy theories, facts however are easier to discuss.
ReplyDeleteThe legislation quote you pulled from the Investor's Business Daily editorial is out of context. What the paragraph means in context is that plans which existed before this legislation, that perhaps don't meet the new health-exchange regulations, won't be able to sign-up new clients. They are grandfathered in to the new regulatory schema.
Bent, So if the insurance companies won't be allowed, by law, to sign up new clients, regardless of the process or the reasons, doesn't that constitute Government interference with private enterprise? Who died and left Obama boss of private enterprise?
ReplyDeleteThis is my point:
Obama/Government has no right--repeat---no right to tell private enterprise how to run their business. Likewise, if a private citizen wants to sign up for private insurance, whether it meets new health exchange regulations or not, it is that private citizens right.
Obama has no right to dictate who a private citizen elects to do business with.
That is unconstitutional.
Look, Bent, if you want to allow Obama and his Marxist government to control every facet of your life, go for it.
I prefer being free to run my life as i see fit. That's called "liberty" and it's worked pretty damn good for the last 200+ years in this country.
O/T
ReplyDeleteThought y'all might want to read this SLAM! of Maureen Dowd by Jeffery Lord at AmSpec!
I'll bet she is absolutely LIVID that this article is out there for people to read...and to be truly enlightened.
I thought this Ann Coulter piece fits in any discussion of this BS health care stuff. So I thought I'd put it here.
ReplyDeleteI didn't watch the prez last nite. He's tought to take in large bites. Instead, I heard part of his speech in snippets on a talk show this afternoon. Barry said that a big chunk (two-thirds I believe he said)of the costs of his(?) proposal would be paid for by eliminating waste in current health programs. Hmmmm. How about just eliminating the waste first? It could mark the first time and true such eliminations ever took place under federal gov't guidance. THEN perhaps we can talk about health care proposals.
Seems to me that any responsible politician would hit that waste first if he wants to prove himself to be the great messiah he paints himself as. THEN it would be hard for opponents to doubt his credibility because he actually would have accomplished something. All he's accomplished so far is his ability to make big promises and spend money he doesn't have.
This man is a true monster. Ben may enjoy having liberals blow smoke up his ass (ask Ben where that term comes from), but we're not fooled. Ben has become a parody, himself, of his own smug self-superiority... He's a sheep, and he can't think for himself. He parrots every liberal he reads and listens to. His logic makes no logical sense.
ReplyDeleteObama is fast becoming the worst president in American history. His poll numbers are even lower than Jimmy Carter's were at this point in his presidency. Bush 42 had higher poll numbers at this point in his presidency. But Obama is so hell-bent on reshaping America to his ideological image that he's forgotten that it's NOT his job to do such a thing. HIS job is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and preside as Commander in Chief over the military. It is not his job to create layers of bureaucracy whose job it will become to decide who will and who will not get lifesaving treatment. What Obama wants to do is evil. Every bit as evil has the stance he took on the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.
OH! and under Obamacare our tax dollars will pay for abortions... we will be forced to subsidize murder. And don't let sheeple like Ben get away with telling you only the rich will pay... he's either just as deluded as, or just as disingenuous as the voices he slavishly parrots. The ten percent of earners in this country are already paying 45% of their wages in taxes. Under Obama that number-- unless he's stopped --will climb over the 50% mark, and kill economic growth... as if it's not already beaten and bleeding on the verge of some forgotten American highway. And who does Obama think he is that he can demand a man pay more of his earning to government than he is allowed to keep for himself? There are too many Czars in this country already! This is America! It's not some satellite state of Soviet Russia, even though it's continuing to take on that same still-recognizable oily sheen-- to some of us at least.
It's becoming more and more clear that BHO is out of depth. Out of his mind. And out of OUR money. Unless "We the People" stop him-- and it looks like we are on course to do just that --he will steer this nation into the catastrophe looming large before us. One other thing he will accomplish by doing so? He will destroy any hope of another Black American gaining the White House... for generations, if not for good.
And that presser he held the other night? What an "effing" liar that sorry SOB is!
"Obama's health care plan will virtually outlaw insurance companies." A pretty outrageous statement that you can't back up.
ReplyDelete"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." A pretty outrageous statement that you can't back up.
"I would personally like access to free health care." Nobody is talking about free health care.
Again, "except as provided in this paragraph" leaves out the entire paragraph. I believe it means that when passed, you can't write policies that exclude pre-existing conditions or that don't pay for normal and reasonable care and procedures.
Show me otherwise, please.
Let's look at this objectively. P-Bo's administration can't organize a program to give people money to buy new cars, without a major screw up. But we're going to bend over and serve up health care to them. Really?
ReplyDeleteNo joke, Craig! Last week I tried to turn over my 1991 Toyota Corolla under the Cash for Clunkers program but was told my car didn't qualify... it's a "fuel efficient" vehicle.
ReplyDeleteTrue. It's fuel efficient, but it's a '91... 18 years old! 230,000 miles! Leaking oil from places too expensive to fix. In the shop OFTEN! If my Toyota isn't a clunker, I don't know what is. I thought the whole idea was to get as many old-model vehicles off the road as possible, replacing them with MORE fuel-efficient vehicles. Does the government expect me to believe that my '91 is comparable, in terms of efficiency, to a 2010? In spite of advancements in technology since 1991?
Guess not.
Not only that, but look at the program. Par for the course, it's underfunded, poorly organized,and much more complicated than it needs to be. Ultimately either the people who didn't buy fast enough or the dealers who entered the program in good faith are going to pick up the tab for this. We've got dealers who destroyed cars then found out after the fact wouldn't get $$$$.
ReplyDeletePlease let these guys reform health care.
Ben,
Surely you agree that the bill should actually be written and read before P-Bo and the Boys come out in support of the "plan".
"I thought the whole idea was to get as many old-model vehicles off the road as possible, replacing them with MORE fuel-efficient vehicles."
ReplyDeleteWell the idea is to get older cars that get low mileage off the road and get owners to buy a new car. Why are you surprised that a car that gets well over 20 MPG wouldn't qualify even if it were 50 years old?
Hello! It's a clunker! It frequently breaks down. In some cities you can get fined if your vehicle breaks down on a busy thoroughfare. Who cares if it gets good gas mileage if it's clogging traffic?
ReplyDeleteAnd what's up with the EPA changing the goalposts on mileage standards? And what's up with many dealerships making buyers sign an agreement to return their new car if BHO doesn't pay up for the clunker? And we want Obama to run healthcare? I don't think so.
The problem with BenT and his 'fear-mongering' trope is he believes everything the politicians tell him. He can't even honestly critique the policies Obama and the Dems are shooting out their asses... the policies [read: Bills] that they haven't read, nor reasonably understand. Obama complained during the campaign about Congress and the REPUBLICANS forcing legislation through that NO ONE WAS READING, and yet he's trying to do the very same thing?
Obamacare is a very dangerous pile of steaming legislation. And no one on the left, including BenT, seem to find it the least bit worrisome that Congress is passing sweeping changes to the American way of life without even reading the bills... bills they can't even themselves fully articulate.
Anything the president or Congress says is accepted and swallowed whole without question. The Left BITCHED about the Patriot Act, and bitched royally, but they're not even batting an eye to an even more dangerous piece of legislation. A piece of legislation they have neither read, nor fully understand. Don't let BenT fool you. He is NOT a lawyer, and according to DEMOCRATIC Michigan representative John Conyers, Jr., it takes at least two days and two lawyers to go through the bill, and even HE doesn't have that kind of time to wade through it. And neither does BenT.
If this situation weren't so damned dangerous, it would be laughable.
Heard an interesting question today. If, as it appears, the elderly will have care rationed based on their remaining "quality years", and counseled to take one for the team. Will AIDS patients be treated similarly? Seems reasonable. Why should vast amounts of costly care be invested in someone with an incurable disease.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to guess not, we wouldn't want to upset any of P-Bo's special interest groups. Would we?