The whole point of free speech is not to make ideas exempt from criticism but to expose them to it.

Monday, December 28, 2009

When's the breakfast?

I'm not sure whether Bill F won his bet with Mike S, although I don't think so. The so-called health-care reform bill has not yet passed both houses of congress. Let's hope it doesn't. My favorite lobbying organization,, has published another call for its members to join in urging the House of Reps to stop it. Jim Wilson speaks for DownsizeDC below:

I am very angry that the Senate passed H.R. 3590, but keep in mind that my anger does not stem from partisan hatred. I am not a Republican. My concern is my liberty, not my party.

I applauded when Democrats (though not nearly enough of them) opposed the Patriot Act and FISA Amendments Act, but I see now that even this Democratic opposition was neither principled nor consistent. For in their healthcare bill . . .
• the people will lose the essential liberties of privacy and freedom of choice
• as they will be forced to purchase insurance and enroll in a healthcare system they do not want in order to achieve a false sense of "safety" in a health coverage scheme
• which will be more costly and less effective than what we have now, and far worse than what we could have by restoring the free market.

No supporter of this bill should be called a "civil libertarian" ever again.

While I applaud Republicans for staying united in their opposition, I recognize also that they have a large share of blame for getting us into this mess:
• Their corrupt and incompetent rule paved the way for the Democrats to take power and push this bill.
• Their support of the Medicare Drug Benefit puts the lie to the notion that the GOP is a party of fiscal responsibility and small government.
• Their support of barbaric measures such as medical marijuana raids underscores their hostility to our basic liberties.

What Democrats and Republicans both must realize is that my body belongs to me, not the federal government. Not only should this healthcare bill be defeated, but Congress should reverse course entirely and leave me free to make my own decisions with my own life and health. Congress should . . .
• allow larger tax deductions through expanded Health Savings Accounts to decouple health insurance from employment;
• allow purchase of health insurance policies across state lines, so we can each choose policies that best fit our circumstances; and
• repeal all federal laws and regulations that deny access to alternative, non-traditional healthcare providers, treatments, and drugs

With these steps, you will drive down prices and allow greater access to healthcare. You will stop rewarding drug and insurance companies and instead force them to compete. Greater freedom will bring about a healthier and wealthier society.


Rusty Shackleford said...

not so mature, but a good description of the merging of two bills:

Bill Fleming said...

Mike won. Bob, I suggest that if you don't want Health insurance, don't buy it. But what happens if you have an emergency health condition and can't afford to pay for it? You know who's gonna pick up that tab, don't you? Come on, enough with the idealistic BS on this. Next thing you know, you'll be saying you shouldn't have to have car insurance either. This is not a society of one, Bob.

Thad Wasson said...

We have a track record of the government handling of health care. Medicare already borrows heavily from the general fund, Indian Health Services rations care, the VA will not provide service to you if you have a dishonorable discharge from the military.

Socialism has got America in its grips and is going for the throat of freedom now.

Bill Fleming said...

Thad, I'd guess one of the fastest ways to make sure you don't get elected is to come out against Social Security and Medicare.

Bob Newland said...

Kind of a straw man reply, Bill. I don't suggest I live in a society of one. It is, however, a society of ones--individuals with presumptive rights and freedoms (and we already know what the gummint thinks of those). The proposed healthcare bill would codify great restrictions on those rights and freedoms.

It is economically unfeasible, let alone impossible practically, to create a centrally managed healthcare program for America. Any such program will fail at its titular objective, although it might achieve the goals of its real agenda.

Government has severely damaged the availability of medical care already. The currently-proposed bill will blow it up entirely. Idealistic BS, indeed.

Donna said...


I did not take your comments to be anything other than the truth regarding government run health care. Add to your list the number of doctors refusing to accept any new Medicare patients.

Your comments are exactly the mentality that will get you my vote. Socialism is but a heartbeat away.

And Bob- well said, my friend.

Bill Fleming said...

Obviously, you fail to realize the absurdity of your claims. Medicare is the both the reason private health insurance is profitable AND why it's hard to keep up with the cost of it.

Without Medicare, countless elderly would be uninsured and have much less access to high quality health care. But, by eliminating the elderly from the risk pool, private insurance profits have soared. Further, the elderly are living longer BECAUSE they have health care and social security.

Conversely, if everyone paid into Medicare and there were fewer administrative costs, claim denial costs and marketing costs and a younger, healthier risk pool, it stands to reason that the Medicare system would be far better off financially.

In other words, if Medicare for everyone can't work, neither can private health insurance.

I'm sorry, but your arguments don't make a lick of business sense to me. Just because you say something and somebody else agrees with it doesn't mean it's true, Bob, Thad and Donna.

Can you support your assertions?

Thad Wasson said...

Let us use the Indian Health Services as an example. Our Sioux Nation has the lowest life expectancy in the Northern Hemisphere. It also has a very high suicide rate among the young and an out of control diabetes problem.

When there is a medical issue after hours, you have to wait the next day for care or find a ride to the Rapid City E.R. room.

There is no private care on the reservation, only government care. I cannot see the future but the past is crystal clear. Government run care produces apathy in doctors and indifference in patients.

Donna said...

Ok Bill- what doesn't make a lick of sense to me is that you can make a statement involving more government intervention with the statement "fewer administrative costs" ! That is absurd to think that anything run by our governmetal layers of bureaucratic bullshit will be run more efficiently than the private sector that has to maintain a profit to survive.

I will add to Thad in talking about people I know personally that receive care through government provided VA care. First try to get an appointment- you may wait a month or so. Then when you get there, you'll wait several hours before seeing a doctor. If follow up is required, be prepared to have to give up your first born son to earn a referral to a specialist.

Also- Medicare survives partially because most everyone on it also purchases supplemental care to cover the multitude of medical expenses that Medicare does not cover- most prominant is medications.

Les said...

Donna, Michael, Thad and Bob have given me some great reading and insightful posts as of late.

Troy Jones said...


Good points. I'm shocked at the lack of civil libertarian opposition in the Democrat party to this bill. I always thought there was a strain of civil libertarianism in both parties which would transcend political party but I'm not so sure anymore.

The GOP has its civil libertarians but I wonder who is left in the Democrat party. I was encouraged with their righteous indignation over the Patriot Act/FISA that they still existed. But, when they are silent on something even more egregious*, I do wonder if it was just politics and not principle.

* The Patriot Act/FISA has the potential to be more egregious but as written and implemented there were civil liberty protections and recourse for abuse.