Robin of Berkeley has another insightful article at American Thinker. She had a hard time pinpointing what she was experiencing after the health care legislation passed. Now, she realizes that it's similar to the trauma she felt after being dehumanized by a mugger, years ago.
"When I see what Obama is doing to this country, how he is treating its citizens, I'm reminded of the man who mugged me. I think that both are constitutionally incapable of seeing our humanity. And each day that Obama is in office, he communicates this same deadly message to the masses -- that opponents are not human."
As one of her commenters remarks, as a nation we are enduring a "Blitzkrieg of Change".
Showing posts with label Health Care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health Care. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Today's Moment of Optimism
The mainstream media would like us to believe that Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal or Jim Thune are the future of the Republican Party. Of course, it's in the MSM's best interest to ensure that a boring, milquetoast guy like one of these is the next GOP presidential nominee.
One thing this healthcare battle has done is bring out the fighters in the party. Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn, John Boehner, and others, have been fighting throughout this battle, not because they believe it's in the best interest of their own political future, but because they believe it's in the best interest of our country's future.
The MSM can try to tell us who to vote for, but we've been able to see for ourselves who the best leaders would be. They can try to say that Radar O'Reilly is the most dependable guy to lead us into battle, but, no thanks, I'll choose John Wayne.
One thing this healthcare battle has done is bring out the fighters in the party. Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn, John Boehner, and others, have been fighting throughout this battle, not because they believe it's in the best interest of their own political future, but because they believe it's in the best interest of our country's future.
The MSM can try to tell us who to vote for, but we've been able to see for ourselves who the best leaders would be. They can try to say that Radar O'Reilly is the most dependable guy to lead us into battle, but, no thanks, I'll choose John Wayne.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Everything's Going To Be Okay
Today, the day after the health care vote, I'm feeling much more optimistic than I felt the day after Obama's election in 2008.
1. God is in control. Whatever happens, it will serve His purposes.
2. I'm staying away from TV news indefinitely. I can't tolerate the idea of watching a gloating Pelosi. (Band name idea - The Gloating Pelosis)
3. I love the idea of a constitutional amendment to repeal health care. I think there is plenty of grassroots energy to get people to vote in conservative representatives in their state governments, who could then force a constitutional convention. The more people focus on conservative leaders at the local level, the better. The media won't have as much influence on local elections. Average Joe might think that republicans/conservatives are uncaring on some abstract level, but he knows that Dan down the street is a decent, common sense guy who takes care of his family and coaches little league. The more people who get engaged in the election process at a local level, the better.
The important thing is to focus the grassroots energy early.
4. I was about the 300th facebook fan of Bart Stupak's opponent, Dan Benishek, last night. It was fun watching his fan numbers swell during the course of the evening. People want a scapegoat for their anger. By his grandstanding and the cheap selling of his vote, Bart Stupak became the guy. Checking the fan numbers at his facebook page and reading the comments there is a quick pick-me-up.
5. The name, Bart Stupak. The possibilities are endless. (Generally, I don't condone teasing someone, especially based on something he doesn't have control over, like his name, but, Stupak is as Stupak does.)
1. God is in control. Whatever happens, it will serve His purposes.
2. I'm staying away from TV news indefinitely. I can't tolerate the idea of watching a gloating Pelosi. (Band name idea - The Gloating Pelosis)
3. I love the idea of a constitutional amendment to repeal health care. I think there is plenty of grassroots energy to get people to vote in conservative representatives in their state governments, who could then force a constitutional convention. The more people focus on conservative leaders at the local level, the better. The media won't have as much influence on local elections. Average Joe might think that republicans/conservatives are uncaring on some abstract level, but he knows that Dan down the street is a decent, common sense guy who takes care of his family and coaches little league. The more people who get engaged in the election process at a local level, the better.
The important thing is to focus the grassroots energy early.
4. I was about the 300th facebook fan of Bart Stupak's opponent, Dan Benishek, last night. It was fun watching his fan numbers swell during the course of the evening. People want a scapegoat for their anger. By his grandstanding and the cheap selling of his vote, Bart Stupak became the guy. Checking the fan numbers at his facebook page and reading the comments there is a quick pick-me-up.
5. The name, Bart Stupak. The possibilities are endless. (Generally, I don't condone teasing someone, especially based on something he doesn't have control over, like his name, but, Stupak is as Stupak does.)
Thursday, March 4, 2010
You Mean, Obama Didn't Mean It When He Said It?
I just want to quickly highlight Althouse's post showcasing what Obama has said in the past about reconciliation in the Senate, even regarding health care.
I know Rush and many others have also been bringing up these quotes. I wish we could depend on the mainstream media to mention them. Sigh.
I know Rush and many others have also been bringing up these quotes. I wish we could depend on the mainstream media to mention them. Sigh.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Reduced Services For All
I just spent an hour composing a letter to Senators Kohl and Feingold regarding their health care vote. Here's what I wrote:
I understand I am probably wasting my time writing this, but I must implore you to not vote for this partisan health care overhaul. There are ways to help the uninsured without dumping one more burden on the backs of the rest of your constituents.
Analysts consistently agree that this legislation will cost much more money than it saves.
But, that’s just the financial damage.
Your constituents understand that the current changes in ‘recommendations’ for mammograms and pap smears will become ‘regulations’ in short time once the government is in charge. I understand that my mother would not have discovered her breast cancer during a routine mammogram when she was 76 if the ‘recommended’ cut off age of 74 for routine mammograms had been in place.
I understand, as do your other constituents, that mammograms and pap smears are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to a reduction in health care services. No one is going to be mocking the existence of ‘death panels’ when reduced services for all, and rationing, become a reality. Everyone will know someone who suffered and/or died because of the effects of this health bill.
Don’t stop the bleeding of some by making everyone else hemorrhage
Regardless of any other work you have done in your career, if you vote for this bill, your legacy will be of reducing the quality of health care for everyone in America.
Do YOU understand that?
I understand I am probably wasting my time writing this, but I must implore you to not vote for this partisan health care overhaul. There are ways to help the uninsured without dumping one more burden on the backs of the rest of your constituents.
Analysts consistently agree that this legislation will cost much more money than it saves.
But, that’s just the financial damage.
Your constituents understand that the current changes in ‘recommendations’ for mammograms and pap smears will become ‘regulations’ in short time once the government is in charge. I understand that my mother would not have discovered her breast cancer during a routine mammogram when she was 76 if the ‘recommended’ cut off age of 74 for routine mammograms had been in place.
I understand, as do your other constituents, that mammograms and pap smears are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to a reduction in health care services. No one is going to be mocking the existence of ‘death panels’ when reduced services for all, and rationing, become a reality. Everyone will know someone who suffered and/or died because of the effects of this health bill.
Don’t stop the bleeding of some by making everyone else hemorrhage
Regardless of any other work you have done in your career, if you vote for this bill, your legacy will be of reducing the quality of health care for everyone in America.
Do YOU understand that?
Sunday, October 18, 2009
A Few Links
First, Sarah Palin posted a great article on facebook about the consequences of the health care bill. You can read it here.
I also liked this one from the Daily Pundit. He characterizes the problems in the GOP this way: Here’s the nut of it: The GOP establishment sees their problem as being that they are out of power. People like me see the problem as being that they are out of power because they have turned their backs on the principles those who once voted for them believe in.
As a warning, he calls the GOP "S**t Sandwich Republicans" a number of times in that article.
I also liked this one from the Daily Pundit. He characterizes the problems in the GOP this way: Here’s the nut of it: The GOP establishment sees their problem as being that they are out of power. People like me see the problem as being that they are out of power because they have turned their backs on the principles those who once voted for them believe in.
As a warning, he calls the GOP "S**t Sandwich Republicans" a number of times in that article.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Letter On Healthcare 'Bill'
Following is the text of a letter I sent to Senator Feingold and Senator Kohl. For reference, see There Is No Baucus Bill, The Real Cost of the Baucus Bill, and Quinnipiac poll.
I cannot state in strong enough terms how disgusted I am that the Senate is planning on voting on the Baucus health plan as early as Tuesday.
This is not a piece of 'transparent' legislation, like we were promised by the current administration. This is not even actual legislation - it's a set of concepts. How can you vote in favor of this as early as Tuesday?
The latest Quinnipiac poll shows that 47% of Americans oppose the current health plan, while 40% are in favor of it. By a 57-37 margin, Americans do not want a bill that only Democrats support.
The Baucus proposal (again, not even actual legislation) will have a severe, negative financial impact on most of your constituents. As the CATO Institute points out, "The CBO scoring makes it clear that the Baucus bill's reduction in future budget deficits comes not from controlling government spending or reducing health care costs, but because of a rapid escalation in tax revenues."
It is hard enough to make ends meet. Your constituents do not need a "rapid escalation" in taxation. We will not forget who voted for these tax increases. (And yes, even if they're called something else, they are still taxes.)
How can anyone in good conscience vote for something that 1) the American people (and, indeed, the legislators themselves) have not been able to read ahead of time, and 2)will have such a massive, negative impact on so many?
Do NOT underestimate your constituents. We are angry that the federal government has already saddled future generations with insurmountable debt. We are tired of our viewpoints being marginalized by legislators who are supposed to be our servants. We are sick of stale platitudes used to justify dreadful legislation. We are fervently motivated to oust anyone who opts to put politics ahead of the interests of his constituents.
I cannot state in strong enough terms how disgusted I am that the Senate is planning on voting on the Baucus health plan as early as Tuesday.
This is not a piece of 'transparent' legislation, like we were promised by the current administration. This is not even actual legislation - it's a set of concepts. How can you vote in favor of this as early as Tuesday?
The latest Quinnipiac poll shows that 47% of Americans oppose the current health plan, while 40% are in favor of it. By a 57-37 margin, Americans do not want a bill that only Democrats support.
The Baucus proposal (again, not even actual legislation) will have a severe, negative financial impact on most of your constituents. As the CATO Institute points out, "The CBO scoring makes it clear that the Baucus bill's reduction in future budget deficits comes not from controlling government spending or reducing health care costs, but because of a rapid escalation in tax revenues."
It is hard enough to make ends meet. Your constituents do not need a "rapid escalation" in taxation. We will not forget who voted for these tax increases. (And yes, even if they're called something else, they are still taxes.)
How can anyone in good conscience vote for something that 1) the American people (and, indeed, the legislators themselves) have not been able to read ahead of time, and 2)will have such a massive, negative impact on so many?
Do NOT underestimate your constituents. We are angry that the federal government has already saddled future generations with insurmountable debt. We are tired of our viewpoints being marginalized by legislators who are supposed to be our servants. We are sick of stale platitudes used to justify dreadful legislation. We are fervently motivated to oust anyone who opts to put politics ahead of the interests of his constituents.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
At Least He Isn't Biased
We don't usually watch the evening news, but tonight Dave had the beginning of it on just before supper. Brian Williams, the anchor of NBC News, led off with a statement along the lines of "President Obama's health care agenda has been sabotaged by town hall meetings spreading false rumors of 'death panels'. "
Grrrrrr
Grrrrrr
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Another Facebook Quote
Here's the other facebook post, from X:
"No one should die because they were forced to pay the way for someone else in any capacity. No one should go broke because they were forced to pay for someone else anything. It is a moral imperative to be charitable to those less fortunate than you. ...However, it is fascist and immoral to take by force what one person has earned and give it to another. "
I'm guessing that the quote I previously posted has been making the rounds on facebook, and this is a response to it. While I agree with this one, I probably would have worded it differently. I think that this particular response seems to imply that those who are opposed to government run health care mainly object because of financial concerns.
I'm not going too political on facebook, at least not yet. But if I were to post a response to the first post, it would be along these lines:
"No one should die because a government panel decides that they are too old or too disabled to warrant spending money on their health care. No one should go broke because they had to pay taxes. No one's child should have to wait six months for a doctor's appointment. And no one should have to choose between paying wages and paying taxes."
Incidentally, X posted this today:
"No one should be without a beer because they cannot afford one, and no one should be broke because they bought too many beers. "
"No one should die because they were forced to pay the way for someone else in any capacity. No one should go broke because they were forced to pay for someone else anything. It is a moral imperative to be charitable to those less fortunate than you. ...However, it is fascist and immoral to take by force what one person has earned and give it to another. "
I'm guessing that the quote I previously posted has been making the rounds on facebook, and this is a response to it. While I agree with this one, I probably would have worded it differently. I think that this particular response seems to imply that those who are opposed to government run health care mainly object because of financial concerns.
I'm not going too political on facebook, at least not yet. But if I were to post a response to the first post, it would be along these lines:
"No one should die because a government panel decides that they are too old or too disabled to warrant spending money on their health care. No one should go broke because they had to pay taxes. No one's child should have to wait six months for a doctor's appointment. And no one should have to choose between paying wages and paying taxes."
Incidentally, X posted this today:
"No one should be without a beer because they cannot afford one, and no one should be broke because they bought too many beers. "
Health Care, Government and Morality
Yesterday, a couple of my facebook friends had posts about health care. Here's the first one:
"No one should die because they cannot afford health care, no one should go broke because they get sick, and no one's child should miss a doctor's appointment because it costs too much. And no one should have to choose between buying medicine and buying food. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day."
While I'm quite fond of the person who posted that, I'm quite annoyed by the sentiment.
I strongly resent the implication that if I don't want the government to run health care, I am uncaring. That having the government in charge of health care (or anything) is somehow a morally superior stance.
I contend that having the government take charge of anything is a morally inferior stance. It's a copout.
Aren't our families and children better off when the parents take charge of providing for them? Well, I could buy this insurance policy but I know that the government will step in if something bad (health crisis, flooding, other natural disaster occurs). Shouldn't the schools be teaching my kids about that (manners, hygiene, sex ed, values, etc.)?
The more people expect the government to be involved in anything, the less they are inclined to be individually responsible for them. The more government is involved, the more institutionalized, and therefore less human, the help becomes.
If I know that the widow down the street is being provided for by the government, I am less inclined to see if she needs help mowing her lawn or getting a ride to church. My conscience is eased knowing that she's being helped, and yet I am in no way inconvenienced (aside from paying taxes).
But doesn't working through an inconvenience make us stronger. Does government control of anything make its citizens stronger or weaker?
I support government help for those in our society who are truly in need, namely those who are mentally and physically unable to care for themselves. But, the more we expand the category of those needing government assistance, the more we weaken the entire population.
"No one should die because they cannot afford health care, no one should go broke because they get sick, and no one's child should miss a doctor's appointment because it costs too much. And no one should have to choose between buying medicine and buying food. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day."
While I'm quite fond of the person who posted that, I'm quite annoyed by the sentiment.
I strongly resent the implication that if I don't want the government to run health care, I am uncaring. That having the government in charge of health care (or anything) is somehow a morally superior stance.
I contend that having the government take charge of anything is a morally inferior stance. It's a copout.
Aren't our families and children better off when the parents take charge of providing for them? Well, I could buy this insurance policy but I know that the government will step in if something bad (health crisis, flooding, other natural disaster occurs). Shouldn't the schools be teaching my kids about that (manners, hygiene, sex ed, values, etc.)?
The more people expect the government to be involved in anything, the less they are inclined to be individually responsible for them. The more government is involved, the more institutionalized, and therefore less human, the help becomes.
If I know that the widow down the street is being provided for by the government, I am less inclined to see if she needs help mowing her lawn or getting a ride to church. My conscience is eased knowing that she's being helped, and yet I am in no way inconvenienced (aside from paying taxes).
But doesn't working through an inconvenience make us stronger. Does government control of anything make its citizens stronger or weaker?
I support government help for those in our society who are truly in need, namely those who are mentally and physically unable to care for themselves. But, the more we expand the category of those needing government assistance, the more we weaken the entire population.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
