The Democrats are again steamrolling their agenda through Congress. Whether the vote takes place this week or after the August recess, it is likely that the Democrats’ plan for healthcare reform will include a public option or government run insurance program intended to compete with private insurance. Underestimating the damage this public option can do would be a mistake.
Democrats argue that the public option is the only way to keep private insurers “honest.” They believe it would control costs by competing with private insurance. This public option would be based on at least the current Medicare provider network. Democrats actually contend that this would cut costs. In reality, the public option would reimburse doctors and hospitals at the same meager rate that Medicare doles out and the private insurers would bear the cost of that shortfall. They would have to raise premiums, pushing more people off private insurance and on to the public plan, until the public plan is all that’s left. Presto, single-payer healthcare without actually voting for single-payer healthcare.
Additionally, Obama continues to spout the dishonest assertion that if you are happy with your health insurance you can keep it. Our brave media, when given a press conference at which to question Obama on these details, instead chose to delve into Obama’s opinion on a local criminal investigation. This lie continues to go unchecked. The fact remains that the government will decide what minimum coverage you must have. If you have a low cost, high deductible policy that doesn’t include everything on the government’s wish list, you’ll be required to buy more coverage. If you oppose abortion, you still may be required to obtain a policy that covers the procedure. You no longer can decide for yourself what coverage is appropriate. And this is just the beginning of the government dictating policy to doctors and patients.
Obamacare will soon streak through the House like one of Barack’s proposed high speed rail trains. If you want to remain in control and make your own healthcare choices, Obamacare must fail. This doesn’t mean healthcare reform is dead, just the public option that threatens to damage more than it fixes.
Or you’re with the terrorists. Remember those words? Remember the ceaseless criticism that those words brought from the Democratic Party?
Well, from the folks who felt that statement was radical and dealt in dangerous absolutes comes the following words of wisdom: ”It appears that the Republican Party leadership in the Congress has made a decision that they want to deny President Obama success, which means, in my mind, they are rooting against the country, as well.” It’s now the Democrats turn to deal in absolutes. That’s Rep. Henry Waxman making sure that you know that all of Obama’s policies are infallible and if any of his wishlist of agenda items fails to pass, this country will also fail.
This argument assumes that Obama makes no mistakes. Now we know that isn’t true. He got the stimulus vote he wanted and how’s that worked out? Is unemployment in check? Nope, 9.5 percent and rising. So, if Obama getting what he wants doesn’t equal success for this country, why automatically assume that his failure to get each and every agenda item he wants passed would automatically equal failure for this country?
Being the leader of a country does not mean that every idea you have will benefit the country. Just crack open an history book and you’ll find examples galore. Waxman needs to quit the rhetoric and realize that there is nothing more behind the growing opposition to Obama’s plans than the simple fact that Obama’s case for cap and trade and healthcare reform is weak and strains the truth at best. That’s why the Democrats are playing defense. Just let them keep talking.
Now, if you think I’m referring to Obama’s condemnation of Iran’s suppression of election protestors, you’d be wrong. First, because there was no such condemnation, rather a light disapproval of the government’s murder of citizens rightfully protesting a fraudulent election. Second, because our President has instead chosen to turn his condemnation to the south and has taken that strong stand against the “coup” in Honduras. This is just another example of Obama siding with dictators and giving the cold shoulder to freedom.
At first it seemed that Obama’s snub of Gordon Brown, followed by his embarrassing gifts of non-functioning DVDs and an iPod for the Queen, were the result of arrogance and inexperience. However, a pattern has continued to emerge that shows dismissal of and disinterest in our democratic friends and allies and favor towards socialists and dictators.
Obama’s condemnation of the coup in Honduras was swift and strong. He demanded the return of elected President Zelaya. However, he failed to mention that Zelaya was removed by order of the Supreme Court after he attempted to force a rewrite of the constitution to extend his term beyond its constitutional limit. He was replaced quickly by the president of the Honduran Congress, a member of his own party, who vows elections will be held in November. Obama has painted this as a coup and Zelaya as a victim of dangerous overthrow. However, the truth is Zelaya had ambitions to be a Chavez-style dictator whose countrymen refused to roll over when he attempted his power grab.
If Obama’s excuse for failing to condemn the Iranian government’s suppression of democracy was his desire to not be seen as “meddling” in the affairs of other countries, Obama doesn’t seem so reticent when it comes to his socialist friends. It’s clear where his interest and his loyalties lie.