So What's the sense?

It is said by many of the more liberal (Chuck Schumer, et al.) Senators that this so-called opt out plan has the support of almost enough of the Senate to get the 60 votes necessary to pass. Liberal Senators like it because their states will benefit, but what do the states that don't support it get? Why would a moderate Democrat support something like this when there is nothing to be gained in supporting it, only the risk that supporting it is a shoe-in to socialized medicine, and my body being public property? In all of this nonsense, has anyone considered the principles of individual liberty and personal resopnsibility? That it is these traits that made this country what it is, and we are simply flushing them down the toilet?

Does Anyone Care?

So now the Democrats (Harry Reid in particular) when they once said that a public option won't fly in the Senate, are now saying they want to put it in at the State's option. Option of what, and under what conditions will it be mandatory? Have those famous Blue Dogs forgotten whyo they are? Was this spast summer protest over this whole thing nonsense? I really don'ty think the idiots get anything. Just remember, when medicine is socialized, your body will be public property.

Conflict of Interest

So now here we are again rushing with this disaster healthcare bill, and the more that Glen Beck, Limbaugh and all of the others expose the administration, (for being Nixonian, Maoist, the faster they go. They are apparently engaging in a conflict of interest by violating the separation of powers when they sit down and negotiate with the president about what they can and cannot do. Each house is supposed to have separate votes on their own versiions of the bill, which they either pass or (hopefully) they do not pass, then the versions go to a conference committee, at which point they bills get merged into one , and then sent back to their respective houses for a vote. The President is NOT supposed to have a direct influence in this process until the fi\nal legislation winds up on his desk, at which point he vetoes it or not. What is happenening now is that the presidennt is having a direct influence on the legislative process, a violation of the separation of powers and bypassing the idea of separation of powers. Where is it written in the Constitution that this sort of thing is OK?

Lipstick on a Pig

So the media now seems to think that because the Senate finance committe has almost passed a bill, that somehow the bill that it passes will be the greatest thing since sliced bead. What amazes me about this whole fraud is that ultimately, what you are going to get for healthcare is exactly the same thing as the guy who pushes the shopping carriage around the block every day. The inabalility or deliberate ignorance of the proponents of health insurance reform to this very simple fact is a crime in itself. Why should someone who works for a living be treated the same way as someone who doesn't? The better question is, what makes the government think they can make your decisions better than you can? For all the hype, for all of the so-called momentum that proponents of this legislation say they are now getting (which is simply a lull in the opposition to the bill because people are tired of this issue, and Our Dear Leader has not shown his face on the news in a relatively long time), the facts have not changed. the greatest price to be paid in this bill is the price of liberty. You will not have the choice of not dealing with the governemt; your body will be public property (because every decision made by a doctor will be public policy, and as such will (or has to be) fully auditable (under the freedom of information act), and therefore the public has the right to participate in every single decision meade by every single doctor in the country. When the scope of this is really taken into account, when you really consider the disaster that this pholospophy begs for society, you can come to no conclusion but that the people who support such legislation are simply evil.

Single Payer Here we Come

While the state of Massachusetts is far more "progressive" than the rest of the country, here is what we have to show for it: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/10/04/health_executives_wary_of_proposed_payment_system_appeal_to_patrick/

This Romneycare situation is leading very quickly to a single payer type system, one which will no doubt be a living hell. Just remember folks, there is no such thing as medical privacy coexisting with fiscal transparency when someone else is paying the bills. That situation only goes from bad to worse when you go from the isurance company hegemony to the government hegemony.