Daily Archives: August 31, 2009

Media, Politics

Dems Lost The Debate On Obamacare

Without question, Democrats and Republicans agree that ‘health care’ and ‘health insurance’ could be improved upon, made more available, and at a lesser cost than what we have today. What is becoming more apparent is that the majority of the folks do not want Obama’s brand of socialized medicine and insurance.

Where this administration is concerned, the will of the people is irrelevant. Citizen’s reaction at Tea Parties and town hall meetings with congressmen all over the country are written off as phony opposition. Those politicians are out of touch, and apparently, they intend to stay that way. They’re not listening to the folks. Instead, they’re out there trying to sell Obamacare like selling cars. And they are selling cars, literally. Cash for Clunkers. No offense to car salesmen intended.

Rather than taking a step back and doing things that could garner bi-partisan support, like doing one thing at a time, starting with getting the economy back in shape first, Democrats in the Senate are considering passing the bill via a maneuver called reconciliation, where only a slim majority of votes are needed, 51. They are reacting to the fact that there probably isn’t enough support for his plan to overcome a filibuster, 60. To go that route just shows that they’ve lost the debate on Obamacare and will just try shoving it down America’s collective throat by any means possible.

If they succeed, it will be an unprecedented maneuver to usurp nearly 20% of the private sector economy, placing it under government control.

Even the New York Times doesn’t think it is a good idea. Considering they’re about as far left as any opinion-shaper out there, that’s saying something. What they’re really worried about is 2010.

If the Democrats want to enact health care reform this year, they appear to have little choice but to adopt a high-risk, go-it-alone, majority-rules strategy.

We say this with considerable regret because a bipartisan compromise would be the surest way to achieve comprehensive reforms with broad public support. But the ideological split between the parties is too wide — and the animosities too deep — for that to be possible.

It’s also fair to say that they’ve lost the debate that we’ve never had. There was zero input allowed from Republicans in drafting H.R.3200. The only ‘debate’ Obama expects is for Republicans to sign on to it. That’s his definition of bi-partisanship.

Speaking of Obama, he is still out there accusing Republicans as the party of NO. That they don’t have a plan. Guess what? There is a plan and it is called H.R. 3400, and was introduced in Congress over a month ago, July 30, 2009 into the 111th Congress. But the Obama media never told you about it, did they? Regarding President Obama, you have a decision to make. Is he lying about there not being a Republican alternative, or is he that far out of touch that he doesn’t even know it exists? Which one works for you?

At some point you have to ask yourself what is motivating the President to lie to the American people? Did we elect a President to put America on the fast track to Socialism? Do you think he would have beat Hillary Clinton if he ran on what he is attempting to do today?

Politics

U.K. Today

News from across the pond ought to at least be a heads up on what to expect from our social engineers in The White House. Folks in the UK are much further along in this sort of thing. I guess you can say they are more ‘progressive?’

First, in a blow to men, women in the UK have been given what they are calling ‘equal birth rights.’ What?

Women in same-sex relationships can now register both their names on the birth certificate of a child conceived as a result of fertility treatment.

Female couples not in a civil partnership but receiving fertility treatment may also both be registered.

Birth certificates won’t be showing a Mother and Mother, but a Parent and Parent. Well isn’t that special? How long before gay men who use a surrogate breeder file a discrimination suit? ? I’m just saying.

Second and Third are about Health Care in the UK, where it is under government control. Ahem.

Second . . .

Researchers have claimed the food provided in prisons is better than in NHS hospitals.

Third . . . Cancer drugs in the UK are now free. But they can’t seem to give them away.

Nearly two thirds of the 150,000 cancer patients in England have not applied for free prescriptions – five months after they became available. The £7.20 prescription charge was abolished for cancer patients after decisions in the rest of the UK to scrap all fees.

Doctors’ groups responded by saying bureaucracy was putting patients off. Dr Richard Vautrey, of the BMA, said “Patients just cannot face filling out papers when they have cancer.”

Macmillian Cancer Support, a British charity said . . .

Mike Hobday, head of campaigns and policy at the charity, said: “More than four months after the introduction of free prescriptions, it’s worrying that the overwhelming majority of cancer patients are still scrimping and saving to pay for their medication.

Scrimping? At less than $12.00 USD per prescription, they are scrimping? How’s that socialist stuff working again? Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had it right when she said ‘the problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.’