In a Truly Liberal World....

Sam loves his car.  He's named the car "Lucy."  Lucy had been his for years now, staying in his garage.  He cares for her, washes her, changes her oil regularly, even cleans her tires.  In short, he is truly in love with her.

So Sam, being a liberal, decides to marry his car. 

Sam goes down to the courthouse and asks the clerk for a marriage license.  He has an easy enough time filling out the demographic information for himself, but the part for the other "spouse" is a bit trickier.  (Not to mention the fact that it looks suspicious that Lucy's actual age is 7.)  He hands the completed paperwork to the clerk, who observes that "Lucy" not only lacks a last name, but is also not present.  The clerk asks where Lucy is; Sam replies, quite naturally, that she is outside in the parking lot.  The clerk asks if Lucy can come inside; Sam replies, quite naturally, that this is not logistically convenient.

Sam explains that, in a truly liberal world, that the definition of marriage as between "one man and one woman," or as between "any two people" (as the truly liberal government recently redefined it) is discriminatory, and that marriage should be allowed between any two entities, as long as at least one of them is alive.  (The current debate in truly liberal society is whether "not alive" is a discriminatory category.)  Therefore, he wishes to marry Lucy.  The clerk, puzzled by the novelty, gives in and processes the paperwork.

Sam and Lucy go on a brief honeymoon highlighted by a trip to Fred's Auto Detailing.

A few months later, Sam goes to Wal-Mart and upon departing, he realizes to his horror that someone has backed in to his beloved, defenseless Lucy and put an ugly gash in her bumper.  He promptly takes her to the auto body shop, where Lucy is evaluated.  Repairs are estimated to cost $823.46.  Sam is asked how he will pay for it—cash, credit card, etc.  Having realized an error in the process himself, he suddenly asks if Lucy should first have gone to a primary care provider, instead of this specialist.  The body shop guys look at him like he's sucked on the exhaust pipe.  After all, Sam explains, Lucy is his "wife," and she is carried on his insurance policy at work.  The body shop guys suddenly decide that Sam really needs to find a "primary care provider" first and get that in order...and then return. 

Sam calls his health insurance company and demands that his spouse receive the prompt and humane care she deserves.  The health insurance company responds that since Lucy's injuries are not life-threatening, she needs to go to a primary care provider first.  They then wrangle over the fact that there are no primary care providers in-network that do auto body work.  Eight months later, Sam finally extracts the money from the insurance company—less his deductible—and Lucy is "whole" again.

Time goes by.  Lucy is starting to show her age (she's 14 now), and Sam decides to bring home another car.  This one is named Sally—and Sally is younger, faster, and goes longer between oil changes than Lucy.  Being truly liberal, it never really occurs to Sam that marriage usually just involves two entities.

Lucy and Sam still spend time together, but the love is cooling, and one day Lucy quits running.  The auto shop guys—still wary of Sam; they have nicknames like "crackpot" for him back in the garage—report that Lucy's transmission is cooked.  It will have to be replaced.  The cost will be $2,321.87.  Sam leaves Lucy at the shop and goes home to contemplate his choice.

But in this truly liberal world, Sam really doesn't have a choice.  What Sam's healthcare provider finally tells him is that auto shop care is now rationed, and unless he finds healthcare—I mean, in this case, transmission care—on the black market, Lucy will be forced into the Cash for Clunkers program.  He has her hauled to the junkyard, where the proprietor gives him $75 for Lucy.  (In Sam's truly liberal world, this is enough to put a third of a tank of gas in Sally.)

Hypocrisy at the Highest Levels

From the Washington Examiner via Net Right Nation comes this nugget: Pelosi et al., the ones who are seeking to ram through the abominable healthcare legislation that will socialize a substantial portion of our economy without a real up-or-down vote, once went so far as to join in a lawsuit to stop this same strategy for being used for the purpose for which it was actually intended. Here are parts of the article:

But put aside the present for the moment and step into my time machine. Dial the date selector back to 2005 when the Republican majority in Congress approved a national debt limit increase using a self-executing rule similar to the Slaughter Solution.

Guess who went to federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the move? The Ralph Nader-backed Public Citizen legal activists. Here's the argument they made:

[Click here to read their argument]

And now for the kicker, guess who joined Public Citizen in that suit with amicus briefs:

Nancy Pelosi

Henry Waxman

Louise Slaughter

If the Pelosi/Slaughter/Waxman argument against using a self-executing rule against a debt limit increase measure sounds familiar, it should because it's the same argument now being used by Republicans to oppose the Slaughter Solution for moving Obamacare through the House.

Of course, there is one major difference between 2005 and 2010. Debt limit increases are routine in Congress and have been for decades. But to place the American private health care system under government control -- effectively socializing one-sixth of the U.S. economy -- that has never been done before.

Read all about it here and here.

How is Your Congressman Going to Vote?

The Hill, which is more-or-less the newspaper of record covering things in Congress, has published a list of which Democrats could possibly vote "No" on the abominable healthcare legislation currently before the U.S. House. Please take a look at the list, and if you have a Congressman who might vote "No" on this bill, call and demand that he/she do the right thing!

For those of you in Michigan, Reps. Stupak, Schauer, and Kildee are on the list. Pester them if they belong to you!

States Seeking to Ban Mandatory Health Insurance

FOXNews.com - States Seeking to Ban Mandatory Health Insurance

This is a most interesting article. Here is the key element of it:

Lawmakers in 34 states now have filed or proposed amendments to their state constitutions or statutes rejecting health insurance mandates, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a nonprofit group that promotes limited government that is helping coordinate the efforts. Many of those proposals are targeted for the November ballot, assuring that health care remains a hot topic as hundreds of federal and state lawmakers face reelection.

So here's the key issue: Can the states actually do this? Is it constitutional?

I would argue wholeheartedly that these state decisions are indeed constitutional, on the following logic:

• Federal mandates related to mandatory heathcare are unquestionably unconstitutional. The federal government has no authority under the Constitution whatsoever to dictate what healthcare its citizens must have. [Note: Had the abominable healthcare legislation actually become law with Obama's signature, a blizzard of lawsuits would have been filed, gumming it up for years. Thankfully, it hasn't come to that. Yet.]
• The various state measures, regardless of the specific legal manner that they are passed [ballot referendum, legislative vote, etc.], are merely codifying a freedom that Americans have enjoyed since 1776: The freedom to make our own decisions about legal activities.

Some are already saying that since federal law essentially "trumps" state law, that the courts will not allow state actions to take precedence. A "Constitution" in our country is the supreme law of the land. The federal constitution has nothing to do with heathcare provision; if a state constitution does (and in this story, it makes healthcare mandates unconstitutional), then why should it not be the supreme law of the state?

Why You Should Still Be Concerned

I blogged earlier about why Senate liberals, despite all their bluster about not getting everything they want in the healthcare bill, will inevitably vote for it. (Howard Dean says he wouldn't, but he does not get a vote.)

This opinion was backed up by, of all people, former President Bill Clinton. From foxnews.com:

Former President Bill Clinton came to the defense of the Senate bill. Clinton, whose ambitions were humbled by the collapse of his own health care remake, reminded Democrats that political pros don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

"Take it from someone who knows: These chances don't come around every day," Clinton said in a statement. "Allowing this effort to fall short now would be a colossal blunder -- both politically for our party, and far more important, for the physical, fiscal and economic health of our country."

Clinton understands how this has worked and how it will work. Quite frankly, so do the Senate liberals/statists. They will argue for what they want, and they will complain about what they don't get...but they will vote for the bill.

It's the (so-called) "moderate Democrats" and the Senators from Maine that we have to put pressure upon.

Republicans in the Senate: Fight!

I read this absolutely first-rate article over at the RedState blog today and thought that I must share it with everyone who reads my blog. I will copy part of it here; you can read the rest at this link.

It is absolutely vital that the contemptible healthcare legislation sitting in the Senate be killed (and then bludgeoned) by whatever means necessary. The means are there. This is how it should happen:

The Senate, unlike the House of Representatives, has parliamentary rules and procedures that give the minority the ability to stall legislation. In fact, unlike the House, the minority have the ability to virtually paralyze the Senate. Doing so is not something we would want or expect for every bad bill that comes through Congress, but the proposed healthcare legislation is probably the worst piece of legislation ever considered by the United States Congress. It is the most intrusive, most damaging, most costly, most dangerous bill to the economic and personal freedom and liberty of individual Americans that Congress has ever considered. If there is any bill that deserves being stopped by shutting down the Senate, it is this one.

There are a whole series of parliamentary maneuvers that could be used by Republican senators to stop this bill. There is a hard backstop to the current process (Christmas). The Republicans’ goal should be to prevent Reid from passing the bill before that time. If he goes past Christmas and is forced to adjourn or recess, the momentum will shift in favor of those opposing the bill.

How could this be done?

Keep reading here.

What Might Universal Healthcare Look Like? Issue #2

It would be instructive for all of us to consider what universal healthcare would look like in a practical sense. Various bloggers and others have pointed to actual examples in Canada, Britain, and various other countries.

I would argue that we are already seeing elements of it in the United States. I wrote on this topic once already, concerning the availability of vaccines.

Now we learn that a task force at the Department of Health and Human Services (yes, your taxpayer dollars at work...or perhaps, your grandkids' taxpayer dollars at work) recommends against women having regular mammograms before the age of 50. Not simply stating that they are not as important as once thought, mind you—they are recommending against them.

The more cynical among us will consider the future under such task forces. Here's what I envision if universal healthcare becomes a reality.

Women reaching the age of 40 will continue to request mammograms; indeed, some of their doctors will want them to get mammograms due to family histories, medical problems, or other reasons. "Task forces" will decide who gets mammograms. Age and other limitations will be summarily enforced; those who simply "want to check," or who "want peace of mind," or who "felt something suspicious" will likely either be at the end of the line or removed from it. Those who receive mammograms will have to wait for them; women who are found to have cancer will not be able to receive treatment as early for this reason...and consequently, survival rates will decline.

Of course, those who are well-connected or who learn how to game the system will be able to receive healthcare services in a more prompt fashion. Think Soviet Union, 1970's.

My wife is not too far away from this stage of life; I certainly don't want her to face that in the future.

How Will the Senate Liberals Vote?

Some are drawing attention to the fact that there are those in Congress who—however moronically—do not think the House healthcare bill went far enough in its takeover of the American healthcare system. These folks opine that the government needs to be more involved, private insurers less so, and that a new system of bureaucracies is the way to go.

They are, of course, morons, and enemies of the Republic.

There are some in the media who report that these liberal folk will go so far as to not vote for any bill that does not constitute a full government takeover of the healthcare system.

My thesis: This is a complete lie.

These liberals want nothing less than government power over greater and greater percentages of your life. If given a choice between (a) voting for government control over a much larger part of your life, (b) voting for government control over a part of your life, and (c) not voting for either of the first two choices, I can assure you (c) is not the choice they will make.

The liberals in Congress will take whatever degree of control they can get, and then they will plot for more. Do not get a false sense of hope that they will vote against a "watered down" bill. They will not. Remember this. Call your Congressman. The fight isn't over yet.

Another Picture of What Universal Healthcare Might Look Like

According to a story broken by Business Week earlier this week, a number of large, well-known companies, such as Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, have received quantities of the H1N1 vaccine to provide to their employees who belong to high-risk groups, as defined by the federal government.

It should be noted that, at this time, it appears that these companies participated in the acquisition process in a perfectly legal manner, and are bound to distribute the vaccine only to those with the greatest need. In other words, they have done nothing wrong.

Of course, this does nothing to quell the criticism and the rumor-mongering that these companies have somehow gamed the system to garner more benefits than they are due. When I first heard about this on the Today show yesterday morning, you would have thought the mob was involved.

This story is instructive, however, in one way: It gives us a glimpse into what the world of government-run healthcare might look like. There will be times when the demand for a healthcare supply or service will exceed the demand. Some will obtain the supply or service; others, for whatever reason, will not. Those who are "in the know" or have connections will be more likely to receive it; others will not. Furthermore, it is likely that some will not only be "in the know" but will be able to circumvent whatever bureaucratic-nightmare procurement process will be in place.

You may not be near the front of the line. You may not even be told where the line is. You may see others obtain healthcare while you or your loved ones do not. You may not be able to do anything about it.

Americans will respond to this predictably: Some will complain; others will establish a "black market" (as it will inevitably be called by some) to provide healthcare and related supplies outside of the government's bureaucratic system. Some will make use of this market.

And those of you my age and older will start to wonder how similar this is to the Soviet Union of the 1970's and 1980's.

Healthcare, Democrat-style. Just a peek into your future.

If the H1N1 Vaccine Is Such a Big Problem...

...what on earth do you think it will look like when the government is in charge of nearly all of your healthcare?

My wife and I have been thoroughly disgusted when we watch the news and see paranoid, physically healthy people act desperate to get the H1N1 flu shot for themselves and their healthy children. (It doesn't help that the news media exploit and perpetuate this paranoia.) The local news crew inevitably finds some poor soul who wasn't close enough to the front of the line to receive her vaccine, and show her pouring out her emotions (anger, sorrow, bitterness, desperation; tears are often present) regarding the shortfall for the 6:00 broadcast.

Such broadcasts usually contain obligatory mentions of the government not being able to deliver the promised number of dosages of the flu shots.

I do not intend to mock those who, having sought the advice of a wise doctor, are attempting to receive something which is medically important or necessary. If your doctor feels that you should get a flu shot this year, far be it from me to convince you otherwise.

What I do intend to mock, however, is the notion that the government can provide for your health needs. Vaccinations are among the more routine elements of healthcare. My children have been dutifully getting theirs at various ages for years.

Yet, here we see that the government cannot even "make happen" the delivery of millions of flu shots, despite months of planning! If we can't count on the government to deliver on a fairly simple promise of flu shot delivery with months of preparation—and mind you, you'd be ill-advised to count on the government for this—how well should we anticipate government delivery of significant and life-saving healthcare?

In other words, if they can't even get flu shots done right, why should we have any confidence in the government's ability to deliver more critical healthcare to its citizens?

Kudos to blogprof for the link; check out his own personal story of how the vaccination quest went!

Senate Democrats: Abortion = Healthcare

Adding to the growing corpus of evidence that democrats in D.C. want—nay, demand—abortion funding as part of the abominable healthcare bill is a Senate committee vote that occurred this morning. In a 13-10 vote (with pseudo-republican Snowe joining twelve democrats), an amendment offered by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) to "strengthen anti-abortion provisions" was defeated.

It must be remembered that President Obama and most of the key democrats in Congress have already shown clearly that they want to see abortion funding in any final version of the healthcare bill that might pass Congress.

It must also be remembered that abortion is nothing short of the cold-blooded murder of a human being.

And speaking of things to remember...if someone is so cold-blooded as to accept the murder of an innocent life, what will stop their cold heart when it comes to euthanasia? Or "withdrawal of care"?

Is McCotter Nuts?!?

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, a Republican from Michigan, is apparently seeking support in Congress for a bill that would amend the Internal Revenue Code....tell you what: I'll just quote from a letter he sent to his colleagues:

"Dear Colleague," the letter reads.

"According to the 2007-2008 National Pet Owners Survey, 63% of United States households own a pet. Indeed, the human-animal bond has been shown to have a positive effect upon people's emotional and physical well being. In families with children, pets help to create a nurturing environment and provide ample educational opportunities. For people in later stages of life, pets offer important companionship. No matter the age of the owner, pets have been shown to reduce stress, safeguard against depression, improve social skills, and even ease loss.

"In light of this, please join me in becoming a cosponsor to H.R. 3501, the Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (HAPPY) Act. If enacted, H.R. 3501 would amend the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) to allow an annual tax deduction of up to $3500 for qualified pet care expenses. Specifically, "qualified pet care expenses" would be defined as funds spent in connection with providing care (including veterinary care) for a legally owned, domesticated animal."

I first heard this on the radio driving home from work today (and in God's providence, I was stopped at a red light at that very moment, preventing me from driving my car off the road).

Sadly, liberals are having a field day with this—just as we Republicans often do with their loony ideas. Except this idea truly is loony! See examples here and here, if you care to do so.

Our tax code has more than its share of problems and certainly more than its share of illogical tax breaks for special-interest-related reasons. I'd rather see McCotter offer some sort of tax relief related to what I spend caring for the health care of the humans in my household. That would truly be a "HAPPY" day.

Tax breaks for pet care. Think about that.

Government, Charity, and Grover Cleveland

I was inspired today after reading a post over at theblogprof which cited a great article from Daily Inter Lake, a newspaper in Montana. The issue was how Rep. Davy Crockett, when serving in Congress, responded when a voter demanded why he voted to spend federal funds for the relief of people who lost their homes in a fire in the 1820's. Here are a few excerpts from that article (I encourage you to read the whole thing):

"Where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"

That question was asked not of President Obama nor of Sen. Max Baucus or Rep. Nancy Pelosi, but of the less well-known Tennessee congressman, David Crockett.

It was a question that Rep. Crockett was not well-prepared to answer, but his constituent wanted to know why he had voted to spend federal funds for the relief of families that had been left homeless as the result of a ravaging fire in Georgetown....

But back to our story, which comes from an 1884 biography, "The Life of Colonel David Crockett" by Edward S. Ellis, it is instructive to note the puzzlement of Rep. Crockett when he was challenged by his constituent Horatio Bunce while out stumping for votes. Bunce told Crockett in no uncertain terms that he could not vote for him again.

"You gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me," Bunce said in the story, as allegedly recounted by Crockett....

[Crockett:] "When I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said: 'Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'"

But Horatio Bunce, a one-man "Tea Party" of his day, was having none of it. Rather than be hornswoggled by Crockett's attempt to deflect the argument away from the Constitution, he circled right back to it:

"In the first place," he said, the Government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man... [W]hile you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive, what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose."

"The people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."

The well-spoken farmer concluded his presentation thusly: "It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people."

The only hope we have now is that our congressional representatives and senators have a smidgen of the integrity of Davy Crockett, who having been instructed in the truth was man enough to accept it.

This was not the first time I read about this issue in 19th-century American politics. Several years ago I read a biography of President Grover Cleveland, who served as president 1885-1889 and again 1893-1897. One of the big issues of his day was pensions for Union Civil War veterans. Like many issues today, congressmen both individually and collectively were trying to funnel federal money back to people in their districts, and veterans were one very public, very heart-stirring illustration of this.

In the book Grover Cleveland by Henry F. Graff (Times Books, The American Presidents Series), p. 85, is written this about President Cleveland:

In Cleveland's view, the president was simply what the Constitution said he was, the chief executive, a referee making sure that no individual or group is granted special favors or deprived of their rights. In this regard he was not different from many of his predecessors. Nevertheless, new issues were arising, and an assertive public opinion, made more animated by the coming of the modern media, would change the scene.

Cleveland did not see any of this as altering his proud office. he vetoed a bill that would have provided assistance to Texas farmers largely wiped out by a severe drought. In his accompanying message he declared in words that seemed ordinary but that would be unacceptable today: "I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit." He stated a principle: "Though the people support the government, the government should not support the people."

Cleveland—a democrat—was right. It has never been the constitutional duty of government to provide charity or other handouts to people, no matter what situation the people find themselves in. The current healthcare debate is but today's most obvious example. Our federal government has for decades ignored this; Social Security, Medicare, welfare, Katrina relief, and the like are all unconstitutional abuses of the power to tax and disburse monies.

President Cleveland would certainly condemn the current plans to provide "healthcare for all," and probably more than many Republicans in Congress. He would probably find little difficulty in maintaining a balanced budget (which was the case through most of his presidency), and he would probably lose little sleep over the finer philosophical points of today's political debates.

America needs to get back to the Constitution and reject the healthcare-for-all plans circulating today.

Is the Obama Presidency Going to Implode?

Why the Obama Administration Will Implode in Weeks

The article linked above gives an encouraging yet serious perspective on the prospect of the Obama administration going down in flames due to Americans' long-delayed rendezvous with the realities now being proposed in Washington. Consider what Obama has been doing just in the past few months:

• The pushing of a healthcare "reform" that Americans neither want nor care to pay for;
• Support of a cap-and-trade bill that amounts to nothing less than the largest tax increase in the history of our country;
• Beginning to hem and haw about whether or not there will be higher taxes, when nearly everyone paying attention knows it must happen;
  
• Making disingenuous comments about the above; and
  
• Standing at the helm of a record-shattering budget deficit, with no apparent concern for the ramifications.

Americans are waking up. Some of us never fell asleep, but we weren't in the majority of voters last November. The Tea Party movement and the fantastic responses at the various "town hall" meetings across the country are illustrating this.

May God give our country grace and our leaders wisdom!

Great Quote heard on Rush Limbaugh!

I heard this myself on the radio yesterday, and saw a tweet from Katie Favazza @KatieFavazza that pointed me toward it. It has also made the e-mail rounds:

Obama’s health care plan will be written by a committee whose head, John Conyers, says he doesn’t understand it. It’ll be passed by Congress that has not read it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a Treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese, and financed by a country that’s nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong?

Obama and Healthcare: Another Hit to the Michigan Economy!

My wife knows a few people who work at the Jasper Clinic in Kalamazoo, "an independent phase 1-2a clincal pharmacology service provider." [Essentially, they do drug tests on human subjects before those drugs reach the market. Fascinating stuff, really.] Conversing with one of them this week, she learned that about eleven people recently lost their jobs. Why? My wife said the explanation went something like this:

New president...drug companies don't know what he wants to do...drug companies are hesitant to put money into research

If I were the person in charge of Jasper Clinic, I would be cautious, too. The healthcare system overhaul the president proposes will almost certainly cause spending on R&D to diminish substantially. Here in the greater Kalamazoo area, unlike much of Michigan, the healthcare industry is a big deal: Pfizer, Stryker (yes, the stalwart supporter of democrat causes...but a lot of good people work there), and a host of smaller pharmacological companies call this their home. If R&D spending in the healthcare industry drops, as it almost certainly will if the President gets his way, the Kalamazoo area will feel the hits.

And if you're keeping track of the "jobs created or saved" that the President promised several months ago, that takes him to -11.

How Not to Behave at a Town Hall, by Barney Frank

Rep. Barney Frank, Critics Face Off at Town Hall Event - Political News - FOXNews.com

Apparently this was not the most genteel of gatherings.

I do not condone boorish behavior at these "town hall meetings" that Congressmen have been holding. It is appropriate to point out lies, mistruths, deceptions, falsehoods, and hyperbole masquerading as fact...and to do so in a clear voice. It is even appropriate to make facial expressions of disgust, dismay, anger, frustration, etc. when such lies are presented to you. I also have no problem showing agreement (nodding of the head, saying "Amen," smiling, etc.) when someone publicly uncovers a lie for what it is.

The whole idea of a town hall meeting, I thought, was to have a civil airing of ideas for consideration by those present. For that reason, those who want to shout in protest should remain outside. Certainly there have been some citizens who have been a bit, um, coarse in their displays of disagreement. Ideally, both the Congressman and the people of the meeting should show respect toward each other.

Enter Barney Frank, who had one of these meetings Tuesday evening in Massachusetts (see linked article). Some reportedly shouted and booed while he spoke, which, if true, is a bit rude. Yet Frank is also said to have remarked the following:

"On what planet do you spend most of your time?" This was in reference to a comment comparing the administration's policies to those of Hitler.
"Do you really think that advances your argument? I mean, I thought you were thoughtful people here to have a conversation." This putdown was a response to some of the "verbal attacks" Frank was taking.

The congressman was showing the following:

• Contempt towards his constituents. He clearly has a dim view of those who disagree with him, and he speaks to them in a rude and condescending manner.
• Contempt towards the views of his constituents. I did not see any references in the article to even a single outlandish quote from anyone present. Why hate a point of view that disagrees with yours?
• An apparent inability to engage in civil discourse. Even if we give Frank all the benefit of the doubt and assume that the crowd was rude and unruly, it is still his responsibility to be civil.
  

What do you do with a guy like Barney Frank? Vote for someone else in next year's election, and send him back to the private sector.

Medical Care and Cars: A Brief Comparison

In the free market system, some people drive nicer cars than other people. Some people drive Hummers, Cadillacs, and BMW's; others of us drive used vehicles made during the Clinton administration. In any case, nearly everyone is able to meet their transportation needs.

In the free market system, some people are able to afford more/better medical care than other people. Some people go to the doctor frequently and/or have great insurance coverage; others go less frequently and may have to pay out of pocket. In any case, nearly everyone is able to meet their medical needs.

In the Obama system, all people should drive cars of equal value. They must trade in their "clunkers" [to be destroyed] and obtain new cars—which will supposedly save them money in the long run, due to government rules on fuel economy and such. However, car production capacity is finite, and new cars must be rationed. Not everyone gets a new car.

In the Obama system, everyone [in theory] gets equal access to health care. In order to accomplish this, various taxes are instituted and government controls and rules are put in place. Healthcare becomes a limited asset which must be rationed; not everyone will obtain what they need.

Just hope that your body isn't a "clunker"....you know what the Obama system does with those, don't you?!?

The Obama healthcare system, by the way, promises that all of us will be able to have "Cadillac healthcare." By the time our healthcare system is ravaged, though, we'll all be getting "clunker healthcare."

And If That Last Post Doesn't Make You Mad Enough....!

The title of the foxnews.com article says it all:

Senate Bill Would Fine People More Than $1,000 for Refusing Health Care Coverage

Yes, that's right: The proposed legislation says that if you choose—for nearly any reason, it appears—not to purchase health care for yourself (and your family if you have one), you will be forced to pay a fine.

"Called "shared responsibility payments," the fines would be set at least half the cost of basic medical coverage, according to the legislation."

On top of that, the fines will be collected through the income tax system...people are going to really love April 15 if that enters their tax picture.

This is a new low for the Democrats in the Senate (and White House), and represents a huge step toward a socialist/communist economic system in our country. And, yes, it gets worse; here's the final paragraph from the article:

"At their heart, all the bills would require insurance companies to sell coverage to any applicant, without charging higher premiums for pre-existing medical conditions. The poor and some middle-class families would qualify for government subsidies to help with the cost of coverage. The government's costs would be covered by a combination of higher taxes and cuts in projected Medicare and Medicaid spending."

The poor's health care will be paid by everyone else. Those of us who live clean lives and are blessed with good health will be underwriting the smokers, the obese, the sexually promiscuous—and I suspect the abortion seekers, too.

And then I'll really be mad.

Canadians Want Private Health Care? Really?

According to this foxnews.com article (which most of us could have seen coming, in form if not exact date), "Private for-profit clinics are a booming business in Canada -- a country often touted as a successful example of a universal health system."

The reasons are simple and predictable: The health care system of Canada forces long waits and consists of substandard care, by American standards. Canadians want the same quality and promptness of health care that we Americans have come to enjoy! They'd rather pay out of pocket to get their health concerns promptly dealt with than wait and suffer. Go figure!

Canadian health care implementation is managed by the different provinces, and not all of them have allowed private for-profit health clinics. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled in a 2005 Quebec case that patients whose wait times were exceptionally long could seek private treatment and pay for it out of their own pockets.

Do you like prompt, quality heath care? Then don't let the government control it!