The Politics of Compromise and the Compromise of Politics

In the world we live in, politics is the only field where compromise is good. If I were to say that someone's immune system were compromised, most would say that's bad. If I were to say that the engine in your car was compromised, you would be upset. If my doctor said he wanted to compromise, I would ask "with what?" But in the field of politics I know how mad liberals are. I was as mad as this when the Republicans compromised with Medicare Part D. I imagine that liberals are incensed and disheartened. But they should know that they have the entire winter break to face their congressmen and women, and their Senators, as will I. While I know what they feel at watching their hopes wind up in the toilet, I wish they would know that this is what happens when you call medical care a right. You try to enslave doctors or insurance companies, or whoever it is that you want to pay for someone else's product, they are going to do their damndest to enslave you to them. Apparently the right of healthcare has not only been bound to us, we have also been bound to it. So much for compromise.

So much evidence with so little to say

The Obama administration is giving Americans more and more reasons not to trust Obama, but to fear him. There is so much evidence that this administration has no good intent for the US, yet there is so little to say, because I am speechless that they have even tried half the stuff they have. I only hope that my thought on George W. Bush are true: He accomplished more for liberlaism in his 8 years than the Dems would in their wildest dreams: (Attempted) immigration reform, campaign finance reform, medicare part D (the largest expansion of Gov't since Medicare), No Child left behind, and the Iraq war. Three of the five of those were compromises with Ted Kennedy, the Medicare Bill was opposed by the waterboy, and then there is the Iraq war, which motivated liberals more than anything. I just hope I'm right.

Tragedy in Fort Hood

While observing the horrendous tragedy that occurred today at Fort Hood in Texas, http://m.www.yahoo.com/_ylt=ArL9Vll9YaVIP1r4FrKcerObvZx4/SIG=11tl2f3ds/**http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_fort_hood_shooting_suspect, and honoring the men and women of the US military who have had their lives taken over this horrible event. It should be recognized that as a result of this act, The Guantanamo Bay Prison will not be closed. Not now, not next year, not as long as there are people such as this in the world. This is not a political statement, nor is it a prediction, it is a simple fact. No one is that stupid, that they would want the terrorists who committed this act improsoned on American soiil. Period.

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.

Unwanted Interference

So the president started out by using his bully pulpit to influence not only the Democratic legislature in the state of Massachusetts http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27329.html, but also the New York Governor's race. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/nyregion/20paterson.html?_r=2 It apopears to me that this President has crossed the line in so many ways, and so many times, that I think he has gone way over the top on this. I think it is now time to call for inpeachment proceedings to begin.

Has President Obama ever read the constitution of the United States? Has he ever thought of that amendment that is the tenth? It goes like this: "The powers not delegated to the the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the SAtates respectively, or to the people." A good article to read on the issue is here: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30315.pdf. People must come to realize that the states are not the toys of the president, and the legislative process therein cannot be compromised.

The Sneeze Police

So apparently, President Obama is now breaking out The Sneeze Police: Watch here: http://www.fox4kc.com/wdaf-sebelius-sneeze-scold-091809,0,4029781.story?track=rss
This really disturbs me considering the context with which the Obama administration has been playing up how your behaviour will be controlled in the future under ObamaCare. If people don't see this as downright disturbing, then I don't know what's wrong with society.

What a blast!

So I was at the DC protest over the weekend, and it was one of the most exciting things I have ever experienced. The crowds were unbelievable, the atmosphere waslike a giant carnival. I've got some pictures here for you. Something that strikes me as so important in this debate is the way in which the Obanma administration has said that healthcare is a right. I am no man's slave, nor will I bow to any, nor will I ever enslave any. It has become apparent to me that we are on the verge of a taxpayer strike. I saw so many signs at the rally that asked : "Who is Jon Galt?" Well, liberals are about to find out.

The Nancy Pelosi Show

You know, I watched the debate hoping that I might hear something new. There was nothing new, but I'll tell you what: The President had his thunder stolen by Nancy Pelosi. When I get some pictures I'll post them, but boy, did her facial expressions come out tonight!

What a Mess!

I have done a lot of researching over the past few weeks (the investigation that I had been doing on PhRMA somehow turned into a more global ionvestigation of ObamaCare itself, when I came across the original plan that the House Democrats had proposed (as opposed to the one that the Republicans had drawn up as a model for HR 3200) the one that the Dems proposed is a lot more insidious than the one that the Republicans. The Democrats worked hard to keep this out of the hands of the Republicans (who aren't very bright to begin with) Here are the two versions:

Republican:

The realor Democrat version:




Youu can't imagine how much the Democrats wanted to keep this out of the hands of people like me, but here it is. (I used the following articles in researching this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090819/pl_politico/26240
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/53491762.html
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=23889
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/19/consulting-firm-tied-white-house-given-millions-health-care-ad-campaign/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090821/pl_politico/26312_1
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26240.html
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/17/obamacare-doctors-ama-business-healthcare-obamacare.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/firms_with_obama_ties_profit_f.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090818/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul_47
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/25/obamas-lobbyist-problem-david-axelrod/
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/24/who’s-funding-the-obamacare-astroturf-campaign/
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95744
http://www.jeremiahfilms.com/released/WhiteHouse/Obamacare/908030519
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/08/prweb2761844.htm
http://www.newsweek.com/id/138519
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090820/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_health_special_interests_2
http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/04/axelrod-doesnt-get-tea-party-concept.html
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lobbyists-leveraging-schip-bill-2007-10-16.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/17/eveningnews/main5247916.shtml?tag=stack
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/20/AR2009082003557.html?hpid=moreheadlines
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090821/pl_mcclatchy/3296784_1
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/08/17/white-house-phrma-memo-surfaces-again/

Ted Who?

An Open Letter To President Obama

Dear President Obama,

I am writing this letter as an open letter to President Barack Obama in an effort to clear some things out of the air in the healthcare debate. From what I have gathered, proponents of healthcare “reform”, Republicans and Democrats alike seem to be saying that healthcare is a right. I would like to respectfully disagree and detail my disagreement in this letter. In the Bill of Rights, as well as throughout the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments, with the exception of the right to an attorney when a person is charged with a crime (whose exception lies in the principle that the state is the one leveling the charges), every one of those rights has one thing in common: they are all non-material in nature. The right to speak freely, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to be free from soldiers living in your home, the right to be secure in your persons houses papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. these rights describe a nature of humanity which cannot be provided or taken away by any government, and if there is a government which believes that these qualities exist it its expense, then said government has no business existing in the first place. That the rights I have mentioned above have been equated to a product and a service that must be provided by other people is why I have taken offense, and why I write this letter today. It is because of this equation that I fear will result ultimately in the death of the both.
For what it’s worth, the proponents of this plan charge its opponents of unfair tactics, fear mongering, and of things, that, if the Bush administration had accused its opponents of, these very same people would charge censorship. Below are two aricles from time magazine that detail the dangers of even coming remotely close to anything like this, that the risks themselves of anything like this happening are simply too great, and we cannot proceed with this out of the simple fear of creating our own worst nightmare.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,875801,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,870894,00.html

More details on the history of the fraud of the HMO

I have just been reading online, and the history of the situation is more contrived than I thought it was. Apparently the HMO was created by Congress in response to the increasing costs of Medicare. When people are busy blaming HOM's for rationing their care, they should be blaming congress. Read here.

http://www.cchconline.org/aboutus.php3

http://www.cchconline.org/privacy/hmoart.php3

A formal challenge

I am resident of Lowell, MA, and being such, Niki Tsongas is my congressman. I am hereby making a formal challenge to Ms. Tsongas: Afetr the accusations of disingenuousness that have been made by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barachk Obama, that we might be manifestations of Rush Limbaugh, insurance companies, or the Republican party's dreams, (which is false), after Barack Obama's setting up of a ratline for citizens to rat each other out on, nothing could enfuriate and motivate me more than the suggestion that my concerns for my own self interest are not legitimate. If you do not extract an apology out of Nancy Pelosi when you return to congress, or even before then, than those of us that are in this fight will do it for you, and we will take it out in spades.

The Ratline

So the Obama administration seems to think that developing a ratline where people can call up and rat on their neighborsw is a good idea. I wonder what would happen if people decided to email in with information about the president himself. Go to this link

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

to find 0ut more.

In other news, HR3200 has the trojan horse in it that conservatives have accused Democrats of putting into the bill. It is in Sec 102, subsection a, paragraph 1, subparagraph A:

(A) IN GENERAL- 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 Y1.

In other words, after day 1 of y1 (Jan. 1, 2013), no one will be able to offer private health insurance to new individual customers. After all the employers drop their employees, whamo! instant takeover of you! If you thought the Bush Administrations policies of invasion of privacy were bad, well you ain't seen nothin' yet.

August recess has begun

The August Recess has begun, Obama is now reshaping his nightmare for the American people to look more light insurance reform than healthcare reform; Nancy PPelosi has declared that insurance companies are "villains". I thought they didn't want to put these guys out of business. I thought they just wanted to create some innocent goverment run insurance option, not an orwellian monopoly on how you use your body. I guess I was wrong.
It appears that, with all the difficulties that the propoinents of this nonsense have had with their own party, they are getting nervous about the chances of this passing. This in no way means that its opponents can lessen their criticism; in fact, I would say that they have the bill(s) at the perfect stages for observation by the American public for about a month; in a mont's time people will find out that in the US military, with its VA hospital, your body is public property, your medical records are public property. Indeed, you will not be able to take a p&#s without the Gov't knowing about it.
For all those people that pay for things with their own money, not the gov't's money, but their own, they know, that when you pay for something, you own it, and when you own it, you must make controlling decisions. So how is it that the gov't will pay for your healthcare and not make ownership decisions? It won't happen, you will be owned by Uncle Sam if this passes. They will create a competeing gov't option, which will put private companies out of business, because nobody competes with the gov't, and then, the gov't will own you, it will own all of the hospitals, and your freedom will be gone.
I think it was Sen. Jim Demint who had said that if Obama loses this fight, it will be his waterloo; wew have got to draw the line in the sand here.

How Tough It IS

So the senate has finally begun work on theis massive Program, yet they have gotten nowhere. Let's hope the "moderates" like Mccain don't screw this up in the name of getting things done.

The Climax has Begun

So now, in spite of the fact that if the government creates a governemtn sponnsored health insurance plan, there are three options that could happen to the healthcare industry:

1) There is a ghetto-izing of the health insurance industry in such a way that there is gov't (low) quality of health care for one group of people, while anyone who can afford more will do so, and create a rent-control type of a situation, where you have a group of poor people, who can't afford anything more than the gov't gives them, and then you have the wealthy who can afford more.

2) All of the health insurance companies create healthcare plans that mirror the gov't's plan, thus making no \difference at all betwwen the gov't and private insurance, which would ultimately lead to:

3) All of the private insurers go out of business ( they can't get revenue by mugging people on the street and take their money away like the gov't) and we all wind up on a single payer plan (which is what they want).

Any of these three scenarios is exzactly what has to be stopped, in fact the best thing that can reasonably happen is nothing at all. The best thing overall that can happen, is that the gov't eliminates the federal reserve, creates a separation between economy and state for the same purpose and enforced by the same method as the separation between church and state.

If people do not see that the only thing these politicians want is more power over you, and the people that actually make money, then you are blind as a bat, and deserve to live as a slave under this BS.

Well, it looks like we are now all socialists in the USA. Europe has the capitalists. If we are lucky, Europe will stop Obama from implemeting his world wide socialism plan until people in this country wake up and put a real capitalist in power.

On another note, Rush was awsome today, he gave a great monologue on how to stop Obama. While I think that Rush burned up his integrity by endorsing GWB, he is useful for calling Obama on the carpet.

So Now dear president is telling everyone that now is the time to "deliver" on healthcare. Deliver what all of us to some mass self sacrifice of our rights. On the same topic- what happens to abortion- Roe v. Wade, when a Republican comes to power and inevitably will with this type of fraud established as healthcare? Abortion will be gone, (whether you like it or not) and Republicans will show their willingness to use a system that violates your right and responsibilty to yourself to satisfy their own ends.

On a side note I don't think abortion should be as available as it is today, certainly not for convenience or birth-control purposes.

I would like to ask anyone reading this blog what do you think of your healthcare? not the healthcare of 45 million people you don't know, but your healthcare? Are you satisfied with it? If so, and you still want this to pass, maybe you ought to check your premises. He says that he promotes a plan that would not addd to the budget deficit. How can any plan not add to the budget deficit? He is going to be taking the profits away from perfectly healthy, profitable health insurance companies in order to redistribute health care. Now what makes you think that tehse companies will survive if they don't have profits? and if health insurance is delivered to all then your current hogh quality healthcare will have its standards lowered to those peole who don't have insurance. In other words you will get exactly the same healthcare as a worthless bum. There will be droves of people lining up at doctors offices to get their free (taht working people paid for) healthcare. Where do you think doctors will go when they are forced to work as slaves for this nonsense? I only pray that anybody intelligent enough to be a doctor gets and stays out of the profession before its too late.

The statement in the header above, "When Medicine is Socialized, Your Body Will Become Public Property" is a fact. when your health is bought and paid for by someone else, it is that someone else that makes the ownership decisions, i.e., beggars can't be choosers. There are many resources to do research in this field, my main source is Ayn Rand's books, such as Atlas Shrugged, and others. While these references are not technically based, they are philosophically based, and provide an excellent viewpoint, as well as this post http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.com/2007/04/forgotten-man-speaks.html.

The second post on this blog is analyzing the history, the current situations and assumptions that people make, and the possibilities for the fututre.





First: How did we get where we are now? We got here in World War II, we were at war, and the gov't needed people to tighten belts.. so the gov't established rationson everything, and then inflation started to rise way too quickly, and the gov't put price and wage caps on everything. Employers then found that they could not get any new employees, so they had to offer them something other than money.. Health Insurance. 50% of the workforce was women, we all know that women are more concerned about healthcare than are men so it worked great..until the employees needed to retire. Then came medicare, and then came the ever expanding gov't since then.





Now Let's analyze today.


An assumtion that everyone makes is that everyone needs healthcare. Well what is a need? No answer.



The best that I can tell you is that a need in gov't terms is something that everyone must have.

The best real answer is that a need is a deficit. When you satisfy someone else's need, the time, effort, and money, the value that you use to satisfy that need is destroyed. It is wasted. When someone satisfies their own need, without violating anyone else's right to do the same, it is good. What about the woman who works three jobs to support her children you ask? Her working of those three jobs is evidence of her devotion to her children. Would you rather that she not be devoted to her children? Do you expect me to be devoted to her children?



But what makes you think that the gov't has the authority to take over an entire industry, because it has told us that some people "need" healthcare? What makes them think that they can turn your body into public property, and force healthcare providers into slaves of the state?

This post focuses on the fourth amendment. I have seen so little on this issue that it alone disturbs me. The Republicans hate the 4th amendment, and the Democrats use it only when it suits their needs. Let me quote the Fourth amendment to the constitution

"The right ot the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and siezures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and paticularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be siezed."

President Obama intends to specifically violate this and turn your body into public property. He has stated it himself, that medical decisions will be made by beaurocrats, not by doctors, using a medical database made of all the illegally siezed papers belonging to the people.