November 7, 2009

National Health Care Rears Its Ugly Head

The Hill was alight today with the debate over national health care. I'd rather soon forget this topic and sweep it away under the fact it isn't Constitutional. But, since many of our public officials do not care about what is and isn't Constitutional, I'll again address this topic.

I watched C-SPAN today for a good majority of the debate and quickly made some notes on the things that were said. (Since the debate was in the House today, I'll refrain from using "Rep" each time I quote someone since they are all "Reps.") When I began watching the debate, the speaker was Doris Matsui (D-CA). She closed her remarks with saying, "We come to Congress to improve people's lives." If that's the case, then not showing up to Congress would be the best improvement for us! We go to Congress to run our country under the leadership and guidance of the Constitution. Government/Congress is NOT a tool to improve people's lives. People can do that on their own. If she came to Congress to "improve people's lives" then I can only imagine her campaign was filled with personal promises of handouts to her constituents. Congress should uphold Constitutional laws that embolden the American spirit of Freedom and Liberty; and through this spirit, Americans can be the best they can be by putting forth their efforts to achieve success. I don't need the Government taking away my freedoms in an attempt to improve my life, period.

Chellie Pingree (D-MA) followed by stating the importance of national health care because under national health care, we would do away with pre-existing conditions. Now, I know I've addressed this in an earlier post, but it bears repeating. A pre-existing condition is a health condition that is deemed by the insurance company to have existed prior to their coverage and is therefore not going to be covered by the insurance. This is a way for insurance companies to keep their premiums lower. Under national health care, there would be no pre-existing conditions. Therefore, no matter what health condition a person is in, the insurance company must provide coverage. Now, the whole reason for insurance is to transfer risk. If a company is to take on very high risk, and thereby will have to pay a higher amount of claims, the company has no choice but to charge HIGHER premiums to recoup the expense cost of the claims. We're not talking a few dollars here, but hundreds and even thousands of dollars higher. What does that do? It forces the insurance companies to shut down because no one will be able to afford the premiums--which I maintain is exactly what Obama wants. He doesn't want a single private insurance company in existence. He wants the Federal Government to rule over all.

Pingree went on to say that no one should have to file a "personal bankruptcy." I agree, but whose fault is it? 99% of the time, it is my fault if I file bankruptcy. The provisions I've made in my life through school, work, etc. should pave a way that allows me to live without having to worry about bankruptcy. This is classic liberalism! "It isn't your fault. Life was just hard to you. Here, let me fix it." That's garbage! Life was hard for our Colonists and they knew they wanted Liberty or death. THERE WAS NO COMPROMISE!!

Jared Polis (D-CO) said this bill isn't a Government take-over of health care. I guess he's never read the bill. He also said that this would now provide small businesses with affordable health care for their employees. Did you notice this? Did you notice the little lie he's disguised in this statement? His underlying premise is that small businesses should be supplying their employees with health care benefits. Is it your company's responsibility to give you health care? NO! A company should have the right to decide what benefits they provide. That's why they are called benefits! Furthermore, he is assuming that small businesses that do not have health care do not have it because of cost. Perhaps they wouldn't offer it even if it was free. Again, a private business should be able to provide what it wants. And, if you don't like the benefits of that company, then work somewhere where you will like the benefits. But, I'd move now. With a 10.26% unemployment rate, jobs are filling up fast!

Gerald Connolly (D-VA) said this bill should give us a sense of common-wealth. He said that your need should be my need. Really? So, you have a need for health insurance and I don't. But yet, I'm expected to subsidise your need. Why is this one-sided? Fine, if your need is my need, then my need is your need. I have health coverage and do not need secure it. Therefore, it is now your need not to have to secure it either. Just asinine folks!

Mary Jo Kilory (D-OH) said this bill would bring America up to the standard. What standard? The European standard? The Canadian standard? The British standard? Where people from these lands are flocking to this country because our "failure of a medical system" is providing top service - a service they do not receive in their countries with their national health care! No Mary, this bill would lower America to a depth of tyranny not felt since pre-1775. Oh, I'm sorry Mary, that was when the American Revolution began at Lexington and Concord. You see, prior to that, the King of England had the colonists in the thralls of tyranny and the people rose up and fought against it.

Steve Kagen (D-WI) said that people are more important that corporate profits. Well, you don't get profits without people! If you take way people's freedoms and liberties, there won't be any profits to speak of. Businesses will shut down because of the regulations - it will be too costly to run a business. Am I saying that an individual is less important than money? No, absolutely not. However, the approach to this shouldn't be to rape Capitalism.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are this blog's property. Any comment deemed to be in poor taste will be removed.