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 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?

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?

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