The House passed HR3962, commonly known as PelosiCare / ObamaCare, this evening, with 39 Dems voting against and one Republican (Cao) voting for it. The battle isn’t over yet. Let’s keep fighting.
In other news, this happened. Very cool of former President W.
Yes, the wins by Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell were important. I don’t think that the loss by Corzine in NJ was completely surprising. Even in New Jersey, at some point the voters had to say to themselves, “We’ve had enough of Jon Corzine, and his total lack of ability to be a competent governor.” Corzine’s loss can mostly be blamed on Corzine himself. But in this current climate, friendship with President Obama is not a very desirable quality either. Creigh Deeds recognized that, but distancing himself from the President didn’t help him much. He still lost. Before my Democrat friends pounce on the Obama statement, let me clarify a bit here – I’m not saying that the President doesn’t maintain a reasonable amount of popularity on a personal level, but his policies are becoming more and more unpopular. This is a factor, I believe, in some of these Republican wins this evening – that, and the uninspiring candidates the Dems were running with in this election.
Here’s what I think Republicans can take from tonight, regardless of the result of NY-23. It doesn’t mean that conservatives could win everywhere they run a candidate like Hoffman, although I would like to see the attempt. What this says to me is that the idea of abandoning conservatism to follow the moderates / independents wherever it is they are going is deeply flawed, and the national Republican Party needs to reconsider its strategy going forward. I understand why RNC Chairman Michael Steele thought he had to support the decision by the locals of Dede Scozzafava, even though I disagree with it. I also know that, in addition to being moderate / liberal in political ideology, she was also a very flawed candidate. If he was really concerned about letting the locals in NY-23 decide this race, then he should have kept RNC money out of it. This goes for the RNCC as well.
Newt, my man, you have lost so much more credibility with this endorsement. I’ve written you even further off than you were before this endorsement. Congratulations. You will never be President.
One last thing — we don’t need more consultants, focus groups, political hacks, or so-called experts who aren’t looking out for the best interests of the Republican Party and for conservatism specifically telling us what we really want or what we really need. The first thing we must do to fix the Republican Party is to fire all these false prophets and get back to basics.
That is all.
I agree with Congressman Joe Wilson. The President has misrepresented what the Democrats are proposing to do with our health care. Unfortunately, the rules of decorum prevent Republicans from saying what they think out loud unless it agrees with what President Obama has already said. After all, we know how well the Democrats follow the rules they impose on the minority party when THEY are the minority party, don’t we? While I much prefer Senator DeMint’s opposition strategy and admire his restraint during the President’s speech last night, I can tell you that there are many of my fellow conservatives who were yelling at our TVs and radios – mostly similar sentiments to those of Joe Wilson. This doesn’t make Wilson a Super-Patriot or the next “Republican revolutionary”. It just makes him someone who temporarily forgot that he gave up the right to challenge the President of the United States during his speech on national TV when he got elected to Congress. AND he apologized for it. Get over the indignation and let’s move on to what we were talking about – health care.
As far as the question of illegal immigrants getting health care under the House bill, sure the language forbids it, but when there are no explicit enforcement requirements, what guarantee is there that this won’t eventually happen? It’s happening now in the border states, especially in California and Texas. So that’s a legitimate concern.
There was nothing game-changing about the President’s speech last night. We will continue to oppose the proposals currently on the table, because these aren’t serious attempts to address the costs and inefficiencies we have with our health care system right now.
I will get to Dr. Arthur Laffer’s analysis in a future post. I have several initial comments on the subject of health care “reform” that I want to bring to the table before I get to his brilliant work.
If you want to talk about a subject that should be demanding the attention of the federal government right now (but is not) we should be talking about jobs, not health care. Don’t know how many times I have to say this but people with jobs would be far more capable of buying their own health insurance. There are ways the federal government could encourage / support private industry development and growth, and to make it easier for the job market to improve. The Obama administration appears to be more interested in implementing big revolutionary changes in health care than to deal with bread and butter issues like jobs and the economy.
We do not have a health care crisis situation in this country. That 47 million uninsured number — offered by the uninformed and the mediots (but I repeat myself here) is bogus.
From Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny:
“In 2006, the Census Bureau reported that there were 46.6 million people without health insurance. About 9.5 million were not United States citizens. Another 17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year and could, presumably, purchase their own health coverage [1]. Eighteen million of the 46.6 million uninsured were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, most of whom were in good health and no necessarily in need of health-care coverage or chose not to purchase it [2]. Moreover, only 30 percent of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months. Almost 50 percent regained their health coverage within four months [3]. The 47 million “uninsured” figure used by [Speaker of the House Nancy] Pelosi and others is widely inaccurate.”
The number of Americans who are uninsured has been massively inflated to exaggerate the extent of the problems we have with the current health care system as it exists today. This is intentional. There’s no possible way the American people could possibly be talked into an overhaul of the entire health care system without being persuaded that we have a crisis that demands immediate attention. Fortunately, this massive overreach by the Democrats and by the President of the United States with HR 3200 has caught the attention of average Americans, some of whom have been doing the job our Congressmen / Senators won’t do (reading the bill). I applaud those who have attended town halls to ask the tough questions to these Congressmen and Senators. Someone has to do it. It really shouldn’t be necessary to remind my fellow conservatives not to give the media, liberal activists, Democrats and the White House any ammunition to paint our side as a bunch of raving lunatics but I will say it again until it doesn’t need to be said.
One might interpret the previous commentary as an opinion that the American health care system as it exists today does not require any changes. We do not have a perfect health care system. With that said, the choices /options we have for health insurance are vastly superior to any system resembling single-payer or government-run health service programs. Of course it would be wonderful to get all Americans health care coverage, but what sacrifices would have to be made in order to get close to this goal? Is it even possible to spend enough money to provide all Americans coverage? Of course not. The debate here should be whether we must overhaul the current health care system to attempt to cover the relatively small number of uninsured Americans, or whether with a few small changes we can achieve the best combination of coverage and care for most Americans. The latter is my position on health care reform we don’t need a complete overhaul, just a few common-sense changes. What changes would I propose, on the compelling suggestion of economists like Dr. Laffer? I’ll save that for a future post.
That’s all the citizens opposing this health care reform want here – an honest debate where we are told the truth about the proposals currently being discussed for transformative changes in the way health care works in this country. We want our representatives to know and understand what they are voting on at least — if they can’t be bothered to do their job and read the entire bill. (And BTW, if the bill’s too long for Congress to read or understand, why not have some non-lawyers write bills in plain English? Controversial suggestion, I know.) Many Congressional Democrat “leaders” have been writing off their constituents as some uninformed rabble-rousers who are driven not by principle, but fueled by lobbyist cash. This is an extremely elitist, arrogant way for them to approach the conversation with us on health care reform. If you have the proof, show the evidence that citizens are being paid to protest and ask questions at town hall meetings by the insurance industry.
The Democrats in Congress don’t seem to care what we think, even though I suspect they know public opinion has been steadily turning against them on this issue.
I’m going to say a little something to my fellow conservatives who join me in opposition to ObamaCare, in whatever form it ends up taking. We can be passionate in our opposition without resorting to name-calling and personal attacks. I know that there is so much anger and frustration out there with the policies of this administration, but in this, we must continue to fight these policies with civility and confidence. We must not allow our passion to be used by the media to discredit our views because this issue is too important to surrender.
Now that I’ve got that out of the way, let’s get back to the conversation.
Let’s move on from the Barack Obama birth certificate controversy. Much more important things to worry about.
Snopes.com debunks the rumors that President Obama is not a natural-born citizen, and thus ineligible to be President of the United States here.
According to Snopes, the Certificate of Live Birth provided by the Obama campaign is not a forgery. FactCheck.org writers agree — they have seen the original document and provide pictures and other documentation to accompany their report. In addition to that, both Snopes and FactCheck.org mention that there is a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser on the day of Obama’s birth (Aug.13th, 1961). That’s some excellent planning on somebody’s part to begin this conspiracy way back in 1961! Also, there’s an account of one of Barack’s former teachers who had a conversation with the obstetrician who delivered our 45th President. Of course Hawaiian officials have confirmed that our President was born in Hawaii.
I’m convinced. This may not be enough for some of my fellow Republicans, but I’ve done the best I can to lay these facts out there and let everyone come to their own conclusions. But please, stop pushing this. Ya’ll make all of us look like fools.
Several things crossed my mind while I was listening to President Obamas press conference. Here we go.
1) More people could afford health care if they had jobs. Thats where the Presidents focus should be right now, rather than on national / universal (whatever the term we are using this week is) health care or on sweeping new climate change legislation. Obama is right when he says that the American people dont care about the political games from both parties, and that they just want solutions to their economic problems. I hope hes wrong in assuming that Americans really want to become wards of the state by allowing the government to pay for more and more of the care and maintenance of their lives.
2) The President isnt above picking petty fights with his political adversaries. That should be left to his pit bulls Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. Its hard to believe theres much change in the partisan climate thats always existed in DC when every week we hear about the evil Republicans who dare to oppose Obamas agenda. The WH never fails to create various bogeymen for the American people to fear – the Rush Limbaugh controversy for example.
3) You cant expand coverage AND reduce costs. Thats never happened in any country that has government-funded health care, and it wont happen here either. Someone will have to make tough choices about what kinds of treatment will be paid for, and which treatments will not be covered by your plan. Right now, if you have private insurance, the private insurance company makes those decisions. If you have an employer-based plan, you generally know right up-front what is covered in the various plans and what is not. As others have pointed out, private insurers / hospitals / medical personnel can be shamed into doing the right thing when there is negligence on their part by the threat of bad PR. What kind of similar negative incentive exists for a government bureaucrat? I would suggest that there isnt one.
4) The members of Congress and the President must commit to ditching their own private health care plan they receive through the federal government. If they expect us to buy into the idea of the public option, they must be willing to switch to the same plan for themselves and for their families.
5) There must be more accountability for government spending. This is true no matter which party holds the reins of political power. Doesnt it make sense to find out where all the Bush / Obama bailout money went before we start spending all this money on national health care and climate change legislation? Maybe Im suggesting something way too radical here.
On SCOTUS:
Judge Sonia Sotomayor should be evaluated based on her work experience and judicial record, not on her compelling personal story. At the very least, Republicans should ask a few hard questions before allowing this confirmation to proceed through the Senate.
On the CIA/Cheney:
If the CIA doesn’t have plans (secret or otherwise) to take down terrorists, I ask, “Why the heck not?” That’s part of their job, isn’t it? And yes, I would support secret terrorist hunting and not informing Congress of those plans if the Obama admin had such a program. This should be a point of agreement for both Republicans and Democrats.
On competition in health care:
I don’t oppose competition. I oppose a competition in which the deck is stacked in favor of the government’s entry. I also dispute the notion that the post office is a brilliant example of how government competition could improve the service or quality of health care. UPS and FedEx pushed the USPS to improve its services, not the other way around. And BTW, the USPS is still inferior to both.
This was on the Investor’s Business Daily editorial page:
Not since a misguided piece of legislation imposed tariffs that turned a recession into a depression has there been a piece of legislation as bad as Waxman-Markey.
The 1,000-plus-page American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) is being rushed to a vote by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi before anyone can seriously object to this economic suicide pact.
It’s what Janet Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security, might call a “man-caused disaster,” a phrase she coined to replace the politically incorrect “terrorist attack.” But no terrorist could ever dream of inflicting as much damage as this bill.
Its centerpiece is a “cap and trade” provision that has been rightfully derided as “cap and tax.” It is in fact a tax on energy everywhere it is consumed on everything it is used to make or provide.
Fair to assume that cap-and-trade doesn’t have the support of these guys. Even though the intro suffers a bit from some dramatic overstatement, they are right to oppose Waxman-Markey, because this legislation would inflict serious damage on our economy at a time when we can’t take any more financial chaos. A tax on energy affects everyone, and as IBD points out, this includes that fictitious 95% of Americans who weren’t supposed to see any increased taxes under the Obama administration. A tax of this kind directly and indirectly raises the price of everything we buy. It affects farmers and truckers and car companies and soccer moms, and all the rest of our fellow working stiffs. Eventually all this “hope and change” will end up costing the taxpayers a fortune, and there won’t be much payoff for our involuntary donations.
If you want to know if Waxman-Markey would have any significant impact on climate change relative to its cost, read more here.
Please don’t let this issue fade into the background with all the other distractions on the news right now. This is important to the country’s future and we need to let our legislators know that we oppose this bill.
Roger Simon’s article at Politico : “Obama plays Goldilocks on Iran“.
Ha. In all seriousness, though, I can’t say that I’m happy about the way President Obama has handled this Iran election mess. Those who object to President Obama’s handling of this situation aren’t asking for a military intervention here. What we expect from our President is for the leader of the free world to support those seeking more liberty for themselves and for their families. After all, isn’t that in America’s DNA? Isn’t that why we broke away from England? Shouldn’t we as Americans, and President Obama as our representative, do all we can to support those Iranians in their struggle? There’s no question in my mind that we should. The mullahs and religious leaders in Iran will blame the West no matter what happens, and they will continue on their nuclear course regardless of any American diplomacy, so there’s no advantage to staying quiet about a stolen election.
President Obama is a part of history at this very moment. He will eventually have to make tough choices, and will have to say things that will be unpopular, even with his core of faithful lefties in Hollywood and in the media. If he’s not ready to follow that course, he might want to reconsider running for re-election.