House Votes to Seize Control Of Your Health Care
Start bribing your local health commissar now to get your ration card.
The House of Representatives on Saturday night passed a sweeping health care bill by a vote of 220-215.
Seriously, is there anyone who thinks it’s good governance to take over one-sixth of the economy and radically change Americans’ relationship with their government on a partisan vote with a tiny margin?
This seems a bit alarmist, And if anyone did think “tiny margins” was an issue for democracy, then the constitution would require more than a majority vote for passing legislation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 0048 hrs
So the federal government can now seize private property for non-public uses and mandate private citizens buy a product. The American experiment is truly dead…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 0112 hrs
It has been dead for some time now. We’ve become a society where the majority gets to vote themselves the property of the minority. That is the beginning of a very sad spiral, as more and more people find it just makes more sense to steal wealth than earn it, wealth just gets destroyed. I’ve tot to make it for about 15 more years, before I take what is left of my property and retire somewhere else.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 0248 hrs
Anonymous,
I find it ironic that you bring up Constitutional intent in a post about the privatization of a large chunk of our economy.
Posted by Jed on November 08, 2009 at 0711 hrs
Anonymous, this isn’t about legislation, it’s about what is Constitutional. The founders never intended for the government to cover all of our needs. We were supposed to take care of ourselves and be willing to take care of others. This is “point of a gun” stuff. Buy insurance or it’s jail for you. Sounds a lot like the Mafia. “Buy insurance or somethin’ BAD might happen”.
Posted by Steve on November 08, 2009 at 0912 hrs
And I again ask the question of those who support government-run healthcare: “Would you be comfortable with the Bush Administration having this much control over your life?”
But I never get an answer. If the answer was “yes”, it would be a lie.Posted by Steve on November 08, 2009 at 0914 hrs
Look at what price controls and govt mandates have done to vaccines alone. If you think waiting to get your flu shot is bad; wait until you have a heart attack and have to stand (or die) in line.
So long to the healthcare system that has driven more innovation in healthcare and saved more lives than any other country in the world even if you multiple everyone else’s contribution by 10.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 0915 hrs
-
Subscribe to RSS feeds and email updates to keep up with the latest legislative activity in Congress.
“We help you keep tabs on the U.S. Congress. This is the independent, nonpartisan website that started the “civic hacking” movement around the United States Congress.”Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 0928 hrs
This has nothing to do with health care, it never did. This is all about forcefully transferring property (money) from one group of citizens who earned it to another group of citizens that did not. ‘Health Care’ was always a distant second.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 0930 hrs
Given the close margin in the House, I’d be very surprised if a bill anything like this will make it through the Senate.
Also, slightly off-topic, I noticed Owens did vote for this bill. As much as I hate to admit it, folkbum was right about his position. It’ll be interesting to see whether or not this has an effect on his reelection next year.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 0956 hrs
The Senate is much more “minority-friendly,” which means that the (R) bunch can fight to more effect than the (R)s in the House.
Interesting that abortion was nixed, while conscience-protection was never even mentioned.
ALSO interesting that McCain (!!) is now mumbling about the Constitution. This from “What First Amendment?” himself?
Posted by dad29 on November 08, 2009 at 1045 hrs
I was discussing with a colleague the other day that we already live in a virtual socialist society, regardless of the passage of this bill. He scoffed dismissively and asked “how the heck to you figure?” I said, “well, between income, property and sales taxes I’ll be paying about 50% of my income to the government for redistribution.” To me, paying the majority of your income to the government is socialism, regardless of how you define it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 1104 hrs
I guess the one thing that continues to surprise me throughout this whole debate is the number (a minority to be sure but still a sizable number) of people who don’t understand or believe in two fundamental concepts that were ingrained in me even as a (Democratic) child. American Exceptionalism and Self Determination.
It’s always been easy for the far left to advocate for ‘compassion’ via the redistribution of other peoples’ wealth. But now it is far more common, especially among younger Americans, to hear people talk about their need of Government to ‘take care of’ and ‘provide for’ them.
All is not lost, even if this Bill were to become law (it has a long way to go, folks). But the challenge is daunting. The optimist in me hopes we have not reached the tipping point, and that we may be on the cusp of a renewed push for liberty here at home.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 1149 hrs
Why not just sink the dagger merge with Canada and call it a day.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 1305 hrs
The best part is the bill clearly states that either you buy health insurance or pay a fine/go to jail. That’s intimidation and the greedy government people will have no problems using violence to make their system work.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 1339 hrs
There is a Song by Brewer and Shipley “Oh Mommy” that has a lyric
It says right there in the constitution
It’s really A ok to have a revolution
When the leader that you made
Just don’t make the grade
Oh mommy
I ain’t no commie
But I hate to bust your bubble cause there’s gonna be some trouble…Soonfunny it was an Anti-Vietnam Song that is so applicable now
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 1416 hrs
I again ask the question of those who support government-run healthcare: “Would you be comfortable with the Bush Administration having this much control over your life?”
But I never get an answer. If the answer was “yes”, it would be a lie.Dude, why would anyone try? You’ve already sealed off all possible outcomes. “No” and ones a hypocrite, “Yes” and ones a liar. That’s stupid.
Posted by Mike on November 08, 2009 at 1734 hrs
Ok everyone, take a deep breath the shy is not falling. This was not socialism, nor a stealth transfer of property. People on the left used to think Bush was after your personal liberties. Do any of you personally know anyone that is in custody for actions covered under the the Patriot Act? A few years from now when the heat and the rhetoric subside, and the reforms are signed into law, most Americans will say “Why did we not do this sooner?”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 1736 hrs
Sorry, Kay. I’ve seen 50+ years of this. Gotta draw a line in the sand somewhere. Do I know anyone personally under the Patriot Act? WTF does that have to do with Socializing medicine? This is not “reform”. It is a wholesale takeover of the system. Not to mention, “fail to buy health insurance, go to jail”? Not only fundamentally unAmerican, but fundamentally morally wrong.
Posted by Steve on November 08, 2009 at 1753 hrs
Steve, it is not over yet. There will be more changes long before this is over. This is just one chapter.
My comment about the Patriot Act was to draw a parallel to a piece of legislation that some of my friends on the left found upsetting. They also needed to take a deep breath and step back a moment. The sky did not fall then and it will not fall this time.
Calling what happened last night socialism is a bit of a stretch.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 1800 hrs
How is this not socialism? Did the bill last night not provide for free insurance for 40 million who don’t have it now?
How is that coverage being paid for? Hint: By reducing the existing health coverage and income of those in society producing goods and services.
As many have said, this isn’t about better healthcare. It is entirely about redistribution of wealth from the middle and upper middle class to the lower class. But you know, Obama told Joe the Plumber he was doing this. The problem is that about 20% of the voting public in the middle didn’t want to believe that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 1825 hrs
How is this not socialism?
Here are the dictionary definitions of “socialism.”
1) Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2) The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
I think that HR3200 (as amended) is abominable policy and will BK the USA inside of 20 years, when added to the rest of the debt-nuke problem. Even if the financing were solid, however, it would STILL be terrible policy on a variety of counts, including the “one-size-fits-all” prescription, the favors-for-some (Unions) provisions, and the illegal-immigrant inclusion.
But you can’t just throw the word “socialism” around like that, for the FIRST requirement for an intelligent debate is to define the terms correctly.
That’s why the Left ALWAYS avoids the definition of terms, or simply makes up new definitions from whole cloth.
They cannot argue intelligently on the merits. And you won’t, either, if you cannot work with solid definitions.
It ain’t “socialism.” Yet.
Posted by dad29 on November 08, 2009 at 1847 hrs
That is my point dad, this is not socialism. Where I do have to part company with you is the contention that the left always participates in a specific activity. Both the left and the right use language in a flexible fashion for rhetorical effect and political gain.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 1857 hrs
Kay: Tell me how it is NOT Socialism. We’ve been on this path for my lifetime. Incrementally, the government (both Republican and Democrat) have reached farther and farther into your life. If you are ok with the amount of power they have over your life, that’s great. I’m not.
Posted by Steve on November 08, 2009 at 1905 hrs
Steve- Dad29 just did.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 1910 hrs
John: My poorly stated point is that we have been marching headlong into Socialism for over 50 years. This is just the next step. We are almost there.
Posted by Steve on November 08, 2009 at 1913 hrs
dad29,
I’d have to say the bill fits pretty squarely into your first definition of socialism.
“means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy…”
- Means of producing and distributing - public option, exchanges, etc.
- Plans and controls - mandatory insurance or fines/jail timeYep, we’ve defined our terms and it’s socialism.
Kay, the sky never falls. It’s incremental. Death by a thousand cuts. Do you think someone a hundred years ago (pre- income tax) would recognize our welfare/warfare state?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 2002 hrs
Chris/Steve: HR3200 fits better into “Statism” than “socialism.”
Socialism is concerned with means/methods of production. While one could argue that the healthcare economic sector is “production,” it’s a stretch.
FWIW, Statism is far more a threat than socialism. To that point, observe that the Statist HR3200 imprisons resisters. Socialism doesn’t do that, per se.
Kay, I’ll agree that rhetoric can get a bit….ummmnnnnn…....rhetorical. But I’ll also wager that the Leftoids are far less precise as a whole (and illogical, too) than Righties.
Posted by dad29 on November 08, 2009 at 2012 hrs
Fair enough,Dad.
Posted by Steve on November 08, 2009 at 2030 hrs
Steve- I think you have a poor understanding of what Socialism actually is. The US is one of the most conservative countries, especially when you look at the Western world.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 2250 hrs
That should probably read, “one of the more conservative countries.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2009 at 2251 hrs
My congressman Kind voted for it after saying he would not. No surprise—thats Ronnie.
But after fanning the flames of blame between the evil insurance companies and providers Ron swept up the support of the health care giants in his district. He even offers a quote from one of the megas in his press release.
?The status quo is not acceptable,” said Robert Nesse, MD, President and CEO, Franciscan Skemp Healthcare (La Crosse), Mayo Health System. “What we see in health care right now in the United States is tremendous amounts of
duplication of services that are not necessary. About 30 percent of the money we spend on health care could be
saved if we were all practicing at the best standards of quality and efficiency. The House bill’s provision calling for
an Institute of Medicine study and recommendations will move us in the right direction. I look forward to continue
working with Congressman Kind to achieve a final product that moves Medicare toward a model that rewards
value.?It appears to me that the medical center I use is wasting my money and that of my insurance company. But it also appears as though Ronnie bargained away MY health insurance to BUY the support of those who just want more federal reimbursement for sloppy medicine.
So the big medical establishment that fought off responsibility by pointing to big insurance wins the eenie miney mo test for Ron. Too bad we dont have big insurance companies in our district.
This discussion has been about winners and losers from the beginning. I think working people with good jobs and good benefits are now the losers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2009 at 0940 hrs
John,
I think ‘most conservative’ is actually more accurate as it pertains to this discussion, if by conservative you mean less Socialization. We have less Socialist policies than most ‘developed’ countries.We, the US, are continually redefining the line of ‘capitalist society’ closer to a Socialist society, yet we are still the primary example of a capitalist society. Maybe Democrats have it right in this case Dad. If they can stay in power long enough they will have had no need to ‘define their terms’. The most Capitalist country in the world could more resemble a Socialist Society than a Capitalist Society.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2009 at 0946 hrs
I think working people with good jobs and good benefits are now the losers
Back in January or so I observed that Obamacare would reward ONLY union-labor and Gummint employees. They will get decent healthcare coverage.
Everyone else can go hang.
Posted by dad29 on November 09, 2009 at 1711 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 104
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 05:39 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).